You should ask him how many millions of Bangladeshi immigrants Wisconsin plans to house. I mean, if climate change is so great for Wisconsin then it's only fair that they help those who are most negatively affected by it.
I think he just outed himself as being in the pocket of Big Tornado.
Nothing is better than 1 billion mosquitos per square meter every summer.
And the wet and warm feedback loop are going to make them the only animal Greatlakers interact with in the future summers.
whats actually going to happen, because Wisconsin is so central to the continent, is there will be more extremes and no middle ground. though this is slightly less bad than more western states due to the great lakes, but not by much
the cold coastlines like maine and british columbia will probably see some moderate benefits, though there is a real chance of increased forest fires. the growing season is likely to increase by a full month and a half.
in regards to rain, its likely that the middle of the country will dry up and desertify, whereas the southeast will turn into a sort of wet and humid jungle/swamp and the northwest and northeast will paradoxically become much rainier and much drier as it fluctuates between the two rapidly, leading to issues like mudslides.
yeah, it blows my mind when people in the continental climates of the US sort of assume that it will manifest as a gentle warming.... and not even more pronounced, violent swings and variability with events pushing outside of historic patterns and extremes (in an area already prone to extreme shifts). and what really blows about the US, compared to other places, is we don't even have a cultural context for extreme events anyway because we genocided the people that lived here and have made every effort to ignore or delete their histories, so people are just casually resistant to warnings.
i went to a symposium one time and listened to this talk by an outreach-oriented climatologist that was working in AZ and he talked about how his messaging about adaptation strategies had to change between audiences of white ranchers and audiences of native ranchers. older white ranchers shut off when "climate change" is mentioned, while older native ranchers were easy adopters, with some groups saying, "yeah, we have an oral history about this/[specific areas] being devastated by [y], so we'll work out some communal land swap [or whatever]."
so we're stuck with a scenario where understanding what has happened here is, for most, based on just 500 years, at max. meanwhile, real paleoclimatology / geology nerds have to live with knowledge about things like ARkStorm and try to walk around like a normal human without occasionally blurting out "we're all gonna die probably because it turns out there are catastrophic events that happen every several hundred years, and climate change is going to make the next one even worse."
the cold coastlines like maine and british columbia will probably see some moderate benefits
British Columbia gets heat domes lul. Imagine being hotter than India
The only parts of America benefitting from this is New England.
A bit ahead of schedule but not by much. How long before some NYT article trying to convince you that the rising sea levels is good actually because it will make housing more affordable and this is a win for Democrats actualy, while another WSJ article tries to convince you to invest in the "new top 10 beach front properties of the future".
My dad lives in the foothills and has joked that all he needs to do is wait and he'll eventually get beach front property.
