Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The winter of 2011 around the Twin Cities was really mild. I remember my cousin saying how she remembered winters having much more snow when she was younger. Then this winter they got 72" of snow. When I was there in 2011 I used to park my car over next to the garage. My cousin told me this year if I had done that, I wouldn't have found it until spring when the snow melted.
No, zero advantages of warming, and Alaska is having runaway warming temperatures at far greater rates anywhere in the US. The high latitude warming is causing entire jet streams to flip, causing even more extreme weather elsewhere.
That's narrow-minded and ultimately self-defeating and really just driven by a political agenda. Climate change will create winners and losers. It's a given and something any serious apolitical analysis would show.
Climate change is also essentially inevitable. The people of Minnesota would do well to understand it as a potential opportunity. That's not to say there can't be negative effects, but successful adaptation can and will happen.
The only reason we don't talk about it is because then people might be less interested in throwing away their prosperity in pursuit of barmy green schemes.
That's narrow-minded and ultimately self-defeating and really just driven by a political agenda. Climate change will create winners and losers. It's a given and something any serious apolitical analysis would show.
Climate change is also essentially inevitable. The people of Minnesota would do well to understand it as a potential opportunity. That's not to say there can't be negative effects, but successful adaptation can and will happen.
The only reason we don't talk about it is because then people might be less interested in throwing away their prosperity in pursuit of barmy green schemes.
Very rapid climate change won’t have winners. Whether most realize it or not, we rely on biodiversity and rich, functioning ecosystems. Rapid anthropogenic climate change isn’t giving species time to adapt, so rather than slowly shifting their habitats, tons of species will just go extinct, which will wipe out many ecosystems. The result will not be “winners and losers” it will be “losers and worse losers”.
Before anyone jumps in to say who cares about species extinctions and ecosystem disruptions — do not forget that we rely on these things for food, air, clean water, medicine, and a million other “ecosystem services”. And I haven’t even touched the potential effects of mass migration.
The article only talks about people whose hobby/passion relies on frigid temperatures and snow cover. Thats not entirely representative, is it? Its funny to me how even in a place that could stand to gain a lot from a warming climate they try to paint it like a bad thing because dogsled racers are upset.
Warmer winters lead to a lot of strife for native vegetation, especially in the boreal forests of northern Minnesota. Warmer years also lead to increase in ticks which endanger the native moose population. But yes, we sure could gain a lot. Sorry, we actually care about the environment here in Minnesota. Don't wanna see it turn into Texas or North Dakota.
Very rapid climate change won’t have winners. Whether most realize it or not, we rely on biodiversity and rich, functioning ecosystems. Rapid anthropogenic climate change isn’t giving species time to adapt, so rather than slowly shifting their habitats, tons of species will just go extinct, which will wipe out many ecosystems. The result will not be “winners and losers” it will be “losers and worse losers”.
Before anyone jumps in to say who cares about species extinctions and ecosystem disruptions — do not forget that we rely on these things for food, air, clean water, medicine, and a million other “ecosystem services”. And I haven’t even touched the potential effects of mass migration.
Exactly!
IMO what we should really be talking about, what the media should focus on as the main issue, is the mass extinction event we're currently in the midst of. An actual mass extinction event, caused by humans, with current extinction rates of species up to 1000 times the background level! This would still be happening without climate change, as a result of overconsumption of resources, destruction of habitat, pollution, etc. etc.; add in climate change, and the catastrophe is even worse.
Talking about it in these terms should get the direness of the situation across. Then again maybe not, since people have become so disconnected from the natural world, and see its demise in such hazy, abstract terms, that it's hard for them to imagine our lives really changing as a result. But they will...maybe we will even go extinct, too.
Minnesota is among the fastest warming states, and Minnesota’s winters are warming faster than its other seasons. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that since 1970, Minnesota’s winters have warmed at an average rate of 1.1 degrees per decade — that’s more than five times faster than the rate of winter warming in previous years.
1 Minnesota is among the fastest warming states, = false
2 winters are warming faster than its other seasons. = false
3 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that since 1970, Minnesota’s winters have warmed at an average rate of 1.1 degrees per decade = false
4 — that’s more than five times faster than the rate of winter warming in previous years. = false
I know, it may be hard to believe. Being a skeptic I simply checked every GHCN station and all the data for MN, and every last claim in that paragraph is false.
Some of it is false, or fake, in subtle ways, but even the false claims are false, like the last one.
Quote:
since 1970, Minnesota’s winters have warmed at an average rate of 1.1 degrees per decade — that’s more than five times faster than the rate of winter warming in previous years
That's so full of false, it's complicated to even explain it, unless you simply look at the actual GHCN data, in which case a trained eye can see exactly why it's nonsense.
But it's simple to explain why it's all fake/false (not sure what the correct term is for complete BS about weather/climate data)
The biggest obstacle in a case like this is the absurd "adjustments" made to the actual measurements of the weather in MN, by officials at NOAA. In to counter the absurdity of "trust the government they would never be wrong", (an attitude that seems hard to understand, if you have lived a long time in the USA, as I have), one may appear to be either delusional, or very smart, both of which don't go over well on the internet. (I am neither actually)
In simple words, If one stands up and says "NOAA is full of it in this case", you either get applauded by those who already know this, or egged by the other side who are just as sure you are crazy or being paid by "big fossil fuels" to spread disinformation. (none of which is true)
What I have done in the past is show actual data, which is about the worst thing one can do in an argument of this sort. While it may be hard to believe, I have been preparing for this argument since December 2009.
28 miles northwest of Tampa FL. Look at the last 8 years of temps for Tampa and look at how many days have been above normal vs below since 2011. The figs will shock anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, we actually care about the environment here in Minnesota. Don't wanna see it turn into Texas or North Dakota.
