How ‘Climate Migrants’ Are Roiling American Politics

[shlomo]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/27/how-climate-migrants-are-roiling-american-politics-523295?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

The impacts are varied, from the quarter of a million Louisianans who fled New Orleans, mostly for Texas, after Hurricane Katrina, with the 40,000 who stayed bringing more non-white and Democratic voters to formerly conservative precincts; to the influx of people fleeing California’s wildfires who ended up in Chico, Calif., prompting a political backlash from local residents.

[PeanutButter]

Good find. More of this as the changes ramp up. And ramp up, and ramp up. And continue to ramp up for the rest of our lives. 

 

[kzb]

9 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

Good find. More of this as the changes ramp up. And ramp up, and ramp up. And continue to ramp up for the rest of our lives. 

 

I've showed you on other threads how US wildfires have reduced in frequency and there is no increase in hurricanes and extreme weather events.

What has increased is the number of Americans choosing to build wooden houses in the middle of forests.  Also cutbacks in flood defences.

I think you are right, the claimants will continue to ramp up.  Stupidity and people believing stupidity, and you swallow it whole.

[PeanutButter]

🤣 yeah people are just moving for no reason

 

cool story bro keep it up 

[skinnylattej]

17 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

Good find. More of this as the changes ramp up. And ramp up, and ramp up. And continue to ramp up for the rest of our lives. 

 

UN projections for climate change refugees over the next 50 years are frightening, especially from sub-Saharan Africa.

It is not clear to me how liberal democracy will survive when faced with millions of migrants.

[PeanutButter]

40 minutes ago, skinnylattej said:

UN projections for climate change refugees over the next 50 years are frightening, especially from sub-Saharan Africa.

It is not clear to me how liberal democracy will survive when faced with millions of migrants.

Indeed. And it's inevitable. But no one really wants to talk about it, and in some quarters you're deemed racist/eugenicist/Malthusian for even raising the topic. 

Which is why I keep reiterating on here that when talking and planning our housing needs we should be looking at 20/30/40 years ahead (unless you have no children and no plans for any, in which case crack on). 

Your point about liberal democracy is spot on. When the special, self-absorbed, purple haired theybies have a choice of maintaining their own comfy lifestyle or lowering it dramatically to accommodate others, I expect some tantrums. 

[onlooker]

28 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Indeed. And it's inevitable. But no one really wants to talk about it, and in some quarters you're deemed racist/eugenicist/Malthusian for even raising the topic. 

Which is why I keep reiterating on here that when talking and planning our housing needs we should be looking at 20/30/40 years ahead (unless you have no children and no plans for any, in which case crack on). 

Your point about liberal democracy is spot on. When the special, self-absorbed, purple haired theybies have a choice of maintaining their own comfy lifestyle or lowering it dramatically to accommodate others, I expect some tantrums. 

No discussion is being allowed about issues like the optimum population of the UK, what the UK people actually want, whether food and energy self sufficiency are sensible goals, and deriving from those issues, how land use and ownership should be allocated.

[byron78]

9 hours ago, kzb said:

I've showed you on other threads how US wildfires have reduced in frequency and there is no increase in hurricanes and extreme weather events.

What has increased is the number of Americans choosing to build wooden houses in the middle of forests.  Also cutbacks in flood defences.

I think you are right, the claimants will continue to ramp up.  Stupidity and people believing stupidity, and you swallow it whole.

Hmmmm.

Either you're the stupid one here, or you genuinely believe tens of thousands of people are fleeing nothing but propaganda.

I know which one my money would be on...

[kzb]

43 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Hmmmm.

Either you're the stupid one here, or you genuinely believe tens of thousands of people are fleeing nothing but propaganda.

I know which one my money would be on...

 

 

 

 

[Freki]

One metric to sums it all? The problem is too complex to cherry pick one data point. 

[skinnylattej]

1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

 

 

1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

Indeed. And it's inevitable. But no one really wants to talk about it, and in some quarters you're deemed racist/eugenicist/Malthusian for even raising the topic. 

Which is why I keep reiterating on here that when talking and planning our housing needs we should be looking at 20/30/40 years ahead (unless you have no children and no plans for any, in which case crack on). 

Your point about liberal democracy is spot on. When the special, self-absorbed, purple haired theybies have a choice of maintaining their own comfy lifestyle or lowering it dramatically to accommodate others, I expect some tantrums. 

Sadly self-censorship cuts in, and I won't post much of what I believe concerning rational projections for the impacts of climate change, as I'm not prepared to face the onslaught.  But having read lots of papers, watched lectures from several universities and talked to physicists and meterologists working at the Hadley Centre, I am convinced that the future will be difficult, and that some unpleasant events may be closer than many people realise.  If you were to ask me "are you frightened?", the answer would be "yes".

I'm very unlikely to be affected by what happens to the climate in 30 years, but I believe that there is a strong moral case for not trashing the planet for the following generations.  But we have had 26 COPs and very little progress.

[byron78]

11 minutes ago, kzb said:

 

 

 

 

Isn't it the power and not the frequency that's the issue?

(Also, a source for the graph would help!)

How long have you been involved in this area of research? Sounds fascinating as a job. Fair play.

[kzb]

1 minute ago, Freki said:

One metric to sums it all? The problem is too complex to cherry pick one data point. 

There's a lot more obviously.  I've posted some of it on the climate change thread.

Even the IPCC report says there is no convincing evidence that extreme events are increasing in frequency.

 

 

[byron78]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

There's a lot more obviously.  I've posted some of it on the climate change thread.

Even the IPCC report says there is no convincing evidence that extreme events are increasing in frequency.

 

 

I wouldn't even bother with the IPCC for extreme events tbh. I'd look at the insurance industry.

I think your graph data is lifted from here btw:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5?error=cookies_not_supported&code=272bb187-cad0-4aad-b98d-847c0f90f66f

[kzb]

3 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Isn't it the power and not the frequency that's the issue?

(Also, a source for the graph would help!)

How long have you been involved in this area of research? Sounds fascinating as a job. Fair play.

Fair point.  Here is the plot of "major hurricanes".  

Don't forget that more hurricanes are detected in the satellite era.  Going back in time many were missed.

 

 

[kzb]

2 minutes ago, byron78 said:

I wouldn't even bother with the IPCC for extreme events tbh. I'd look at the insurance industry.

I think your graph data is lifted from here btw:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5?error=cookies_not_supported&code=272bb187-cad0-4aad-b98d-847c0f90f66f

It's a perfect excuse for the insurance industry.

And that hurricane data was published in Nature, "can't argue with that".

[byron78]

26 minutes ago, kzb said:

It's a perfect excuse for the insurance industry.

And that hurricane data was published in Nature, "can't argue with that".

Yep, it's a good paper (it does actually link and note increases in intensity later, but does also make the sat point you make).

It also suggests more hurricanes are being pushed into other regions, which is quite interesting but quite beyond me now.

 

 

[kzb]

4 hours ago, byron78 said:

Yep, it's a good paper (it does actually link and note increases in intensity later, but does also make the sat point you make).

It also suggests more hurricanes are being pushed into other regions, which is quite interesting but quite beyond me now.

The IPCC itself says there is little support for the idea that extreme weather events are increasing.

Yet public bodies, insurance, trains, water companies, all now have this ready-made excuse for for not doing the job they are paid to do.

[byron78]

50 minutes ago, kzb said:

The IPCC itself says there is little support for the idea that extreme weather events are increasing.

Yet public bodies, insurance, trains, water companies, all now have this ready-made excuse for for not doing the job they are paid to do.

That doesn't sound right to me. You may be getting fed info from an old IPCC report there.

They now have pretty detailed region by region breakdowns. 

As I said, the trend that's being noted in insurance circles is that extreme events are moving about and popping up in areas not previously associated with them (quite literally a climate change). Modelling and mapping any of that is a nightmare and most likely presently impossible, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/managing-the-risks-of-extreme-events-and-disasters-to-advance-climate-change-adaptation/changes-in-climate-extremes-and-their-impacts-on-the-natural-physical-environment/

Edited December 9, 2021 by byron78

[kzb]

39 minutes ago, byron78 said:

That doesn't sound right to me. You may be getting fed info from an old IPCC report there.

They now have pretty detailed region by region breakdowns. 

As I said, the trend that's being noted in insurance circles is that extreme events are moving about and popping up in areas not previously associated with them (quite literally a climate change). Modelling and mapping any of that is a nightmare and most likely presently impossible, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/managing-the-risks-of-extreme-events-and-disasters-to-advance-climate-change-adaptation/changes-in-climate-extremes-and-their-impacts-on-the-natural-physical-environment/

Well I'll have to look at that.

Another point is, who has the authority to say that the 1850-1900 climate was the ideal?  What actually is the "correct" temperature for the planet?

[kzb]

Before anyone starts about the recent US tornadoes:

The recent tornadoes were actually caused by unusually cold weather in central USA with warmer than average temperatures in the East.

 

[PeanutButter]

Climate change is fuelling human migration.

😂 Deal with it.