OT?: Climate change will push population north making the midwest the most habitable part of the country. Think of the recruiting implications!

Submitted by Jonesy on September 15th, 2020 at 7:12 PM

https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/

 

Population has moved south over the years making the south a football recruiting hotbed. Well I've got good news! Climate change will cause much of the south to be unlivable and unfarmable while many living along the coast will find their homes below sea level and the midwest will become the most habitable section of the country. Take that SEC, soon* all the recruits will be in the B1Gs geography. Silver lining, guys!

 

Yes it is strange that I read this and thought of college football recruiting.

Rickett88

September 15th, 2020 at 7:15 PM ^

Is this “soon*” that you speak of in the next 5 years? If not, not soon enough...

Edit: After glancing at the article, I am super pumped for our 2080 recruiting class! Just gotta make it to 91 years old and still have my wits about me...

Joined: 08/21/2012

MGoPoints: 10566

WolverineinLA

September 15th, 2020 at 7:22 PM ^

Climate change is real, man-made, and future generations are fucked. But I will sacrifice everything to beat Ohio State. Just need to burn enough coal for the coast line to reach Toledo and we are good.

Joined: 02/11/2016

MGoPoints: 1939

Michigan4Harbaugh

September 15th, 2020 at 11:48 PM ^

The fact that our climate is changing is acknowledged. It changes every day. It changes constantly. It is never static. Our climate is constantly in various stages of change, but there’s nothing we can do about it. We don’t stop the change that the climate’s engaged in, and we can’t create the change. It’s beyond our capabilities.

Joined: 01/20/2015

MGoPoints: 4252

RGard

September 16th, 2020 at 10:23 PM ^

Michael Crichton had some thoughts on consensus science...

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

He goes on to give examples of jacked up consensus science and finishes with...

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

 

Joined: 10/20/2014

MGoPoints: 57073

xtramelanin

September 16th, 2020 at 4:58 AM ^

maybe because they have been so wrong for so long?  there's a host of other reasons having to do with their data collection and statistical manipulation, but here are a few to start with: 

  • 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
  • 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
  • 1970: Ice Age By 2000
  • 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
  • 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
  • 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
  • 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
  • 1974: Another Ice Age?
  • 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
  • 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
  • 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
  • 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
  • 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
  • 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
  • 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
  • 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
  • 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
  • 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
  • 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
  • 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
  • 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
  • 2008: Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
  • 2009: Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
  • 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
  • 2009: Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
  • 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
  • 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
  • 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
  • 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
  • 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
  • 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
  • 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
  • 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
  • 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
  • 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
  • 2006: Super Hurricanes!
  • 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
  • 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
  • 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
  • 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
  • 1970s: Killer Bees!

take care of the environment.  i'm pretty sure i'm the only one around here living/running an organic farm so i probably don't need a sermon about the environment - i actually care about it a lot and walk the walk more than most (anyone?) on this list.  but you might want to stop believing what your TV tells you.  sadly, 'scientists' is a code word these days. 

Joined: 12/09/2014

MGoPoints: 15439

Njia

September 16th, 2020 at 6:52 AM ^

Yep. I have come around on the subject of climate change, but not because of articles like these, or the holier-than-thou pronouncements of hypocrites. In fact, the Arctic IS ice-free for much of the year now. So much so that countries are starting to fight over it because it is fast becoming an important shipping lane between Asia and Europe. As an international waterway, Canada will be obligated to patrol it. 

That, and other direct and indirect effects of climate change are what convinced me, not the raw data. The manner in which temperature data is collected, analyzed, and recorded is scandalous. Models of expected temperatures are used to "correct" actual data, and not the other way around. That is a major foul in how experimental data is supposed to be governed. There are lots more. NOAA and UKMet manage data with all the delicacy of Boeing designing 737 software.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

Blue Ninja

September 16th, 2020 at 7:49 AM ^

I'm the same, used to deny that climate change was a thing but now it is beyond obvious. I do think that there are variations in climate over great amounts of time but what is happening now has been greatly affected by man.

Also, I live in the south and this has been the coolest summer in my 5 years here. It was still hot and very humid but last year at this time the month of September was in the 90's all but 5 days. We didn't even hit 100 this summer.

Joined: 11/17/2009

MGoPoints: 5759

St Joe Blues

September 16th, 2020 at 9:36 AM ^

What if your observations were only anecdotal? I Live in SW MI. Ten years ago we had "record" lows for Lake Michigan. Some of the beaches had more sand than the Gobi Desert. This was attributed to climate change. You could have easily jumped on board with that based on observations.

Now we have "record" highs. The beaches are gone and dunes are being washed away. Steel walls that were buried in the sand have been exposed again (the same steel walls that were erected at the last "record" high cycle to hold back the lake waters). Ten years ago you could jump off the piers down into the water, and only high waves would splash you. Now most days the piers are under water and high waves are halfway up the light houses. This is also attributed to climate change.

Which of these two scenarios is truly caused by climate change?

Joined: 01/08/2017

MGoPoints: 33831

xtramelanin

September 16th, 2020 at 10:11 AM ^

and here's some more propaganda that NOAA was just busted for, regarding LA's 'heat wave' causing the fires: 

According to NOAA, the division also clocked up a new record, just beating 2012 and 1998:

image

But how exactly did NOAA reach these figures, given that the weather stations within Division 6 tell a completely different story?

Paul Homewood smells a rat. The charts below clearly show that in Division 6 (where LA County is located), this August’s heat was nowhere near record-breaking.

Yet at Downtown LA, it was nowhere a record month, and neither was 2012. The hottest August was in 1983, which was 4.1F hotter than this year:

chart

http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu/

Neither was the heatwave last month unusually severe, with ten days above 90F. Again, 1983 stands out as much more severe:

chart-1

Maybe other parts of that Division had much hotter weather last month, with LA somehow escaping it?

But this does not appear to be the case, as San Diego well to the south, also shows exactly the same pattern. Last month was 3.8F cooler than in 1983, and again well down the list of hottest months:

chart-2

The South Coast Drainage is a narrow coastal strip, so it is unlikely to have any great climate variation from one part to another. It is hard to see how NOAA can justify their “record” claims.

Joined: 12/09/2014

MGoPoints: 15439

chunkums

September 16th, 2020 at 1:52 PM ^

Science isn't about individual predictions from individual studies. It's about a huge body of evidence developed over time with individual studies building upon each other. Individual predictions have been wrong. Famous scientists like Al Gore (from your list) don't always have all of the facts. Several decades of scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is not wrong. I know it's uncomfortable, but climate change is real. Period. 

Regarding all of the ice age stuff in your list, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Like many conservatives like to point out, the climate operates in cycles. It's possible for the natural cycle to be an ice age, but for fossil fuel emissions to simultaneously be warming the earth as a counterforce. There also was never the kind of scientific consensus that we have now about an ice age. Almost every scientist on earth who studies these things accepts climate change. Every major political party of every developed nation on earth accepts climate change, with the exception of one. I think we know which one it is.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 29029