Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

People need food and water to survive. The drought will eventually end. It would be wise to have a alternative water source available for use during droughts.

"THE" drought? What drought? The one that currently plagues the southwest and west?

Many folks conflate climate and weather. However, if we do a kind of subjective calculus and "integrate" all weather all over the world over a good-sized chunk of time, we GET climate.

Sure, "the" drought will end. So will everything else. Kind of a tautology, eh?

What is fascinating is what new patterns of weather might emerge over the next hundreds of years in different specific parts of the planet. That, of course, is what much of the speculation about global warming is about. How high will the water get? How dry will Albuquerque get? How hard will it be to continue industrial scale agriculture in various parts of the U.S. How much will the biology of the oceans change? Etc., etc.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We're past preventing it and may not have any capability to reverse it, so the only game left is limiting the damage. Of course, you can let things run, and die before the brown stuff gets distributed by the ventilator, but your children won't be able to dodge it.

Well, if we are past the point of preventing it and don't have the capability to reverse it, then our children and their children won't be dodging it either. So, we'll all just have to accept it and then adapt and adjust to climate change.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'd be okay with scrapping it IF it went to just a straight-up national majority vote - that would hasten the demise of the GOP as a national political power.

The problem is the GOP will use the motivating sense of a more representative approach for a perverted outcome of individual states breaking up their electoral college votes into gerrymandered districts - matching the perversion that we currently have in the US House.

PA and MI GOP have been some of the latest attempts. Probable too late for the 2016 election, but the outcome of 2016 will likely result in it (along with further voter suppression) being brought to front of increasingly desperate backed-into-the-corner tactics.

NB splits its e-vote (along with Maine) and there the GOP wants to go back to winner-takes-all because Obama took that 1 urban vote in the last two elections. Funny.

We're a republic.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The most recent polling (4/9/15) in VA has HC/Bush - 47/40. R.Paul comes the closest at 47/43 -

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2184

Do you really think Paul is going to be tapped to run against HC? This isn't fantasy football.

With McAuliffe team occupying the top three spots, the GOTV in VA will be even stronger than it was in '08 and '12. If HC keeps the "Blue Wall" I have little doubt that VA will put her over the top. Election night should be over around 8:20-8:30 Eastern (regardless of what happens in FL or OH) - probable Prince William county reporting in will do it.

The only real question is when do those Progressives navel gazing over HC finally start paying attention to real action - the Senate?

Everyone has the candidates selected and just waiting for the conventions. Personally, I don't see it. Anointing candidates over a year and a half before the election never seems to work, as not-Presidents Muskie and Hart could attest. Even the GOP is starting to rethink the next-guy-in-line concept, so that slot is in play too.

HC is a mountain of negatives with a big war chest. That may be enough, but I wouldn't assume anything this early.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Rags, say its not so! You're not buying into the latest HC smear?

Sheeple buying into imagery and half-truths is what propagandists have counted on since Goebbels perfected it.

At least give the actual facts a fair shake before propagating the imagery.

Here's some info in response to the latest horse pucky the NYT decided to use to sell newspapers -

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/ne...-believe-their[/b]

Funny, how just a few minutes time thoroughly refutes the latest horseshit. All it requires is just a tad of-benefit-of-doubt and little googling - probable a whole less time/effort than finding and figuring out how to post images of flags.

Well, at least your not screamng BENGAHZI! BENGAHZI! MUFASA!

You're not, but its on the agenda for later -

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/yo...owdys-benghazi

It's exciting times for Pavlov dog manipulators. Your choice to be just another on-cue salivator.

You're purposely missing the point. Truth is the least important issue in an election. Perception is everything, and the Clintons have attracted intense and massive negative attention since Bill was governor. The GOP knows full well: you don't have to beat someone fairly; you just have to beat them. If he was still around, you could ask Lee Atwater.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

We're a republic.

The old "Republic and not a democracy" distinction -- specious in the extreme.

China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Syria, Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Somalia, Eritrea, and Cuba all call themselves "republics".

The Soviet Union was officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- not that any one of the republics was to be imitated as a political system by anyone who wanted freedom. The "German Democratic Republic" was often referred to as neither German, democratic, nor a republic -- before the 1989 revolution that doomed the division within Germany. Cambodia's genocidal regime called itself a "people's democratic republic". Ba'athist Iraq, consistently lacking in human rights, called itself a republic. The mad rule of the late and unlamented Idi Amurderin' in Uganda occurred within a republic. Brutal military leaders ruled the republics of Chile and Argentina. Racist South Africa declared itself a republic as the British Commonwealth condemned Apartheid. The Nazi puppet state of Slovakia (which the current Slovakia disowns as illegal) whose leaders aided the Holocaust called itself a republic.

Despots can rule a republic without having a crown or throne... although Nicolae Ceausescu had the bad taste to use a scepter.

It's not the absence of a figurehead monarch that makes a democratic, pluralistic system with the rule of law. I would rather swear fealty to the Emperor of Japan than serve some American fascist thug.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

First, foreign nationals studying in the US are not considered "immigrants"; they are "visitors", just as tourists are. Second, colleges and universities regard foreign students as cash cows. They pay full tuition; no in-state discount or financial aid packages for them. They help the colleges' and universities' bottom line. So it's hard to see how they hurt Americans, except to the extent that there are fewer slots in elite colleges for young Benjamin or Sophia.

There is the H-1B Visa program too. A large percentage of STEM jobs are given to holders of H-1Bs. Because they have no ability to change jobs or negotiate salaries, employers get a deal by hiring them. From their perspective, they get experience in the US, which is marketable everywhere, then return home in a few years to good paying jobs there. Meanwhile, the salaries of non-H-1B employees is held down by competition with captive labor.

I see it every day.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Well, if we are past the point of preventing it and don't have the capability to reverse it, then our children and their children won't be dodging it either. So, we'll all just have to accept it and then adapt and adjust to climate change.

Did you feel the same way about terrorism on 9/12/2001? 3000 Americans were dead, killed by terrorists. Nothing we could do would bring them back. Did you think then that we'd just have to accept it and adapt to the new world in which thousands of Americans are just gonna die each year because there is nothing you want to do about it?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Saudi Arabia uses RO, but they have piss-away money and a small population. They also limit agriculture. If we really need 600 million acre-feet (i.e. 200 Trillion US gallons) of water, the gross cost is a lot less affordable at $440 Billion. The need may be a lot more or less than that, depending on many factors including the use of confiscatory pricing to keep water use low. In any case, agriculture is probably out, except for the lowest usage applications. Forget dairy or meat farming. Chickens and eggs may be doable, and saltwater aquaculture is no-brainer. But most grains we grow are water intensive. We'll need GMO that are water sippers. Of course, food production can be relegated to more appropriate areas.

Where did you get 600 million acre feet figure? Also I doubt we would have to get all that from RO. RO simply provides an inexhaustible supply and provides an upper bound. I saw a video of California irrigation. I saw water being sprayed on fields. SPRAYED! In an effing desert. If we are still spraying crops we don't need anywhere near that 660 million figure.

One does have to inject some rationality to the panic about drought. Climate change and economic inequality are real things. Real things will make themselves known, regardless of how we feel.

Remember peak oil? Back in the 1990's I read how it would hit us in 2010. Well, did it? Yup. And its proceeding as I expected from a physical pov. Economically it not, I did not thin we would have a panics and depression and so demand is slack, and price has not risens as I expected (I thought prices would be approaching $10 in the next few years. Not gonna happen

But what I did expect was that conventional oil would peak around 2010, and that after this supply would be maintained for decades using unconventional means for decades, which would give us a long time to adapt to a world of more expensive energy. In such an environment there would be a driver to roll out all the altenatives. By the time the shit hit the fan on energy in ca 2050 we would have developed wind, solar, biomass, much higher mpg cars and greater efficiency all around.

As I said years ago. Climate change, peak oil, etc are not problems; they are part of the solution. The real problem is economic inequality, because I can think of ways to solve all these other problems without changing inequality.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Well, if we are past the point of preventing it and don't have the capability to reverse it, then our children and their children won't be dodging it either. So, we'll all just have to accept it and then adapt and adjust to climate change.

I live in Virginia. The climate here is 4-seasons, with a less brutal winter and a warmer and longer summer than you have. By mid-century, that will change to something akin to the climate in South Carolina (minimal winter) if we act reasonably soon to curb further climate change. If we do little to nothing, then our climate here will be similar to northern Florida by that time. By 2100, the change is even greater.

So what about Minnesota. Assume you'll be moving 500 miles south (best case) or 800 miles south (worst case). Of course, the other issue in the intermountain region is severe weather, so count on an escalation in the number of tornadoes too.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Where did you get 600 million acre feet figure? Also I doubt we would have to get all that from RO. RO simply provides an inexhaustible supply and provides an upper bound. I saw a video of California irrigation. I saw water being sprayed on fields. SPRAYED! In an effing desert. If we are still spraying crops we don't need anywhere near that 660 million figure.

I'll admit to my source as ROMA, but here's an interesting overview of irrigation in California ... not as pessimistic as my original numbers. Assume this rises a lot if the drought sets in in earnest.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

One does have to inject some rationality to the panic about drought. Climate change and economic inequality are real things. Real things will make themselves known, regardless of how we feel.

Remember peak oil? Back in the 1990's I read how it would hit us in 2010. Well, did it? Yup. And its proceeding as I expected from a physical pov. Economically it not, I did not thin we would have a panics and depression and so demand is slack, and price has not risens as I expected (I thought prices would be approaching $10 in the next few years. Not gonna happen

But what I did expect was that conventional oil would peak around 2010, and that after this supply would be maintained for decades using unconventional means for decades, which would give us a long time to adapt to a world of more expensive energy. In such an environment there would be a driver to roll out all the altenatives. By the time the shit hit the fan on energy in ca 2050 we would have developed wind, solar, biomass, much higher mpg cars and greater efficiency all around.

As I said years ago. Climate change, peak oil, etc are not problems; they are part of the solution. The real problem is economic inequality, because I can think of ways to solve all these other problems without changing inequality.

I think you're right on this. Assume we will do what we must, not what we should. I think that's a fair assessment of past performance, which is likely to be predictive. The open question is not who suffers but how much and how long? If inequality remains very high, it will be the people closest to the bottom who take the hit, until the pain finally reaches far enough up the pecking order that the elites are affected, or at least threatened. By 2100, that will be a fait accompli. I'm betting on this coming to a head much earlier, perhaps in mid-century.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Well, if we are past the point of preventing it and don't have the capability to reverse it, then our children and their children won't be dodging it either. So, we'll all just have to accept it and then adapt and adjust to climate change.

Yes, but that's no reason to do what your Party recommends, and just accept that a few fossil fuel barons should determine just what the scale of the change is, allowing it to be much more dangerous and deadly than it otherwise would have been, if your Party were not able to block needed actions.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Did you feel the same way about terrorism on 9/12/2001? 3000 Americans were dead, killed by terrorists. Nothing we could do would bring them back. Did you think then that we'd just have to accept it and adapt to the new world in which thousands of Americans are just gonna die each year because there is nothing you want to do about it?

I thought war was inevitable and accepted it as a reality. I thought future casualties of war were inevitable and accepted them as a reality as well. I thought doing nothing about it would be foolish and accepted that doing something about it in their world would place all of us at risk here and abroad as a reality as well.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, but that's no reason to do what your Party recommends, and just accept that a few fossil fuel barons should determine just what the scale of the change is, allowing it to be much more dangerous and deadly than it otherwise would have been, if your Party were not able to block needed actions.

I don't think a few fossil barons contribute enough to make the situation worse for all of us. China's industries are having a much greater impact than our industries are having on the environment.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I live in Virginia. The climate here is 4-seasons, with a less brutal winter and a warmer and longer summer than you have. By mid-century, that will change to something akin to the climate in South Carolina (minimal winter) if we act reasonably soon to curb further climate change. If we do little to nothing, then our climate here will be similar to northern Florida by that time. By 2100, the change is even greater.

So what about Minnesota. Assume you'll be moving 500 miles south (best case) or 800 miles south (worst case). Of course, the other issue in the intermountain region is severe weather, so count on an escalation in the number of tornadoes too.

I've been told our that our climate will be more similar to Iowa's.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If inequality remains very high, it will be the people closest to the bottom who take the hit, until the pain finally reaches far enough up the pecking order that the elites are affected, or at least threatened. By 2100, that will be a fait accompli. I'm betting on this coming to a head much earlier, perhaps in mid-century.

Inequality appears to move with the secular cycle. Secular cycle concepts have primarily been applied to agrarian societies, where they tend to run 2 or 3 centuries in length. So we have peaks in inequality (in England) in the early 14th and 17th centuries, leading to crisis periods. I have found another one in around 1800 and it seems to be associated with its own crisis.

Presumably France show a similar pattern in its contemporaneous secular cycles. There is only one example of a secular cycle (so far) in a post-industrial cycle. It's in America. I can find this cycle and characterize it myself so its there. It shows a peak in ca. 1910 with lows around 1820 and 1960. A 140-year length is suggested which would put the peak of the current cycle (inequality is now on the rise and has been for decades) in mid-century.

An interesting coincidence is that there are other interesting trend changes that I noticed 15 years ago in my work on stock market cycles. I came up with a measure of stock market valuation I called R for (business) resources, defined as the wherewithal businessmen use, along with labor and resources to produce a profit. That is, it is capital. It is essentially real retained (invested) profits accumulated over time, that is sort of a constant-dollar book value. A share represents a fixed fraction of total capital and the price of that share is the price of capital. Since capital is the most fundamental tradable aspect of economic activity in a capitalist economy, it is only natural that the stock index should track R. R should work and it should work better than other measures like P/E and Tobin's Q. In 2002 I did a field test, and the prediction made with P/R was most accurate. P/R said stocks had fallen "far enough" n fall 2002 and again in winter 2008-9 to be have much more upside than downside. P/R says P/R reached the lower end of "high enough" to have more downside than upside in summer 2013 and has moved in very high and now "too high" categories, approached what things looked like in 2000.

Prior to 2000 the highest value of P/R had been in 1901. The market returned to somewhat higher levels (but not in terms of P/R) in 1906 and returned to around that level in 1910, and then went into a severe bear market. The stock market was closed for 3.5 months in 1914, things were so bad. Another thing happened. If you divide per cap GDP by R who get a value that is roughly constant over time. I was about 40 over 1871-1907, and from 1940-2000. What this says is a unit of capital plus a person produces a roughly similar amount of output. If you double the number of people, you double output. If you double the amount of capital they have to work you also double output. Note by capital I am including human capital and intellectual capital. R measures all forms not just tangible items like Tobin's Q, which is why it worked better in the field test that Tobin's Q.

The reason is retained profits are always reinvested. Often not in tanglible stuff like plant and equipment, but rather in buying other stock (M&A) or even one'e own (stock buyback). If these investments are fruitful, the newly created R will continue to generate 40 units of output. If the investments are NOT fruitful then the output obtained will fall and the ratio of output to R will start to. This is what happened after 1907. It was "fixed" only in 1940, presumably by WW II. But it wasn't fixed by WW I, so it was not just a big war that did it.

So the question is, why did capital productivity start to fall after 1907. And what happened in 1940 to push it back up into is pre-1907 value for SIXTY years. So what was "done" in WW II lasted for 60 years. That's pretty impressive.

This matters to us because its BAAA-ACK. Capital productivity started to fall after 2000 and is currently about 20% lower than it was during "normal" times, that is the 97 years from 1871-1907 and 1940-2000. So I find the combination of inequality at 1910 levels, a new post-1907 crisis in capitalism happening now, record valuations on the stock market and the apparent resumption of financial panic to be if interest. Could the full-industrialized secular cycle be shorter, and we be nearing another peak in inequality around now? The P/R forecast of a 10000 point drop in the Dow in the next few years could certainly begin a series of events that would result in a secular trend change. Particularly if accompanied by financial panic and depression. So perhaps this WILL happen in our lifetimes.

The saeculum can help with mapping out secular cycles. The Plantagenet cycle (1075-1485) showed in peak in ca 1315 and is associated with the reign of Edward II which I see as a 2T. The secular cycle ended with the Wars of the Roses, a 4T. The Tudor-Stuart Cycle (1485-1690) peaked around 1620-40, which is a 2T and ended with Glorious Revolution, a 4T.

Turchins' first American secular cycle (1780-1930) shows its peak around 1910 (which I see as a 2T) and ends with the Depression 4T. So far it looks like 4Ts begin and end secular cycles and their peaks are at 2T. This does not bode well since it suggests the peak in the next 2T and the end of the cycle in the next 4T, long after all of us are gone.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I thought war was inevitable and accepted it as a reality. I thought future casualties of war were inevitable and accepted them as a reality as well. I thought doing nothing about it would be foolish and accepted that doing something about it in their world would place all of us at risk here and abroad as a reality as well.

So you are a fatalist at heart? That seems at odds with the entrepreneurial, build-a-business ethic.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think a few fossil barons contribute enough to make the situation worse for all of us. China's industries are having a much greater impact than our industries are having on the environment.

Not yet they aren't. And per capita, we're still the world leaders in fouling our home planet. We need to go first, because we should and we can. Saying it's useless, because others aren't joining, is a recipe for doing nothing and failing big.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I've been told our that our climate will be more similar to Iowa's.

Now ask your flora and fauna whether that is a viable environment for them. Here in Virginia, the projection is a massive forest die-off ... and we're a heavily forested state,

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think a few fossil barons contribute enough to make the situation worse for all of us. China's industries are having a much greater impact than our industries are having on the environment.

We Americans devour more energy per capita than just about any other country... and compared to most other countries (China and India are the obvious exceptions) the United States is a giant in population. As for Chinese industries... many are in part US investments there for using the realities that China is a huge market and that Chinese labor is very cheap), Americans buy a huge part of China's luxury exports. So we Americans must take some of the credit for Chinese industries doing environmental damage.

(Economic lesson for the day: one of the best ways for a country to get rich is to sell luxury exports. One of the best ways to drain the wealth of a country is for it to buy luxury imports).

For a kisser-up to Big Business and America's economic elites your economic ignorance amazes me.

This really belongs in "Global Warming", and I will take it there.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I've been told our that our climate will be more similar to Iowa's.

It depends on where you are in Minnesota -- and when you will be there.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The climate of Minnesota is typical of a continental climate, with hot summers and cold winters. Minnesota's location in the Upper Midwest allows it to experience some of the widest variety of weather in the United States, with each of the four seasons having its own distinct characteristics. The areas near Lake Superior in the Minnesota Arrowhead region experience weather unique from the rest of the state. The moderating effect of Lake Superior keeps the surrounding area relatively cooler in the summer and relatively warmer in the winter, giving that region a smaller yearly temperature range. On the Köppen climate classification, the southern third of Minnesota—roughly from the Twin Cities region southward—falls in the hot summer humid continental climate zone (Dfa), and the northern two-thirds of Minnesota falls in the warm summer humid continental climate zone (Dfb).

Winter in Minnesota is characterized by cold (below freezing) temperatures. Snow is the main form of winter precipitation, but freezing rain, sleet, and occasionally rain are all possible during the winter months. Common storm systems include Alberta clippers or Panhandle hooks; some of which develop into blizzards. Annual snowfall extremes have ranged from over 170 inches (432 cm) in the rugged Superior Highlands of the North Shore to as little as 10 inches (25 cm) in southern Minnesota. Temperatures as low as −60 °F (−51 °C) have occurred during Minnesota winters. Spring is a time of major transition in Minnesota. Snowstorms are common early in the spring, but by late-spring as temperatures begin to moderate the state can experience tornado outbreaks, a risk which diminishes but does not cease through the summer and into the autumn.

In summer, heat and humidity predominate in the south, while warm and less humid conditions are generally present in the north. These humid conditions help kick off thunderstorm activity 30–40 days per year. Summer high temperatures in Minnesota average in the mid-80s F (30 °C) in the south to the upper-70s F (25 °C) in the north, with temperatures as hot as 114 °F (46 °C) possible. The growing season in Minnesota varies from 90 days per year in the Iron Range to 160 days in southeast Minnesota. Tornadoes are possible in Minnesota from March through November, but the peak tornado month is June, followed by July, May, and August. The state averages 27 tornadoes per year. Minnesota is the driest state in the Midwest. Average annual precipitation across the state ranges from around 35 inches (890 mm) in the southeast to 20 inches (510 mm) in the northwest. Autumn weather in Minnesota is largely the reverse of spring weather. The jet stream—which tends to weaken in summer—begins to re-strengthen, leading to a quicker changing of weather patterns and an increased variability of temperatures. By late October and November these storm systems become strong enough to form major winter storms. Autumn and spring are the windiest times of the year in Minnesota.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Minnesota

(in fact, the latitudinal and longitudinal extents of Minnesota themselves imply some diversity).

Minnesota is infamous for brutal winters, but the state is not uniformly cold in the winter.

"Frostbite Falls, Minnesota"

the city best known (Rochester, Minnesota) for the Mayo Clinic

But what could you expect of an inland state that extends north and south by 5 1/2 degrees of latitude? Summers in southern Minnesota are hot and humid.

So if you are in Rochester, Minnesota, your climate is already much closer to that of Des Moines, Iowa than to that of Duluth, Bemidji, or "Frostbite Falls" before any global warming.

Global warming will change the culture of your state. Southern Minnesota will progressively become more like Iowa and northern Missouri, which still have some cultural similarities. Southern Missouri is very different. You will wilt in the summer heat as I did in the short time in which I lived in Arkansas. (Of course that assumes that Minnesota will still be humid; if it isn't then it will have a "dry heat" characteristic of the Texas Panhandle. But predictions about rainfall are not so reliable as those of heat). If Minnesota gets dry heat, then there go the 10,000 lakes so much a part of Minnesota culture and recreation. If it simply gets hot, then those lakes will not be so enjoyable.

One thing that I noticed about Arkansas: in the summer, people started developing a lassitude that travelers noticed about people living in oppressively-hot climates -- like India. I noticed that in myself in Dallas, Texas, which has tropical summers and chilly winters. That really is climate, and British colonial officials started noticing that in themselves. I don't know whether you will like that.

That's before I discuss Louisiana.

But I know Dallas, having lived there for seventeen years:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The city of Dallas has a humid, hot climate and is often prone to storms (Köppen climate classification Cfa), though it is located in a region that also tends to receive warm, dry winds from the north and west in the summer, bringing temperatures about 102 °F (39 °C) at times and heat-humidity indexes soaring to as high as 117 °F (47 °C).

A couple of times each year, warm and humid air from the south overrides cold, dry air, leading to freezing rain, which often causes major disruptions in the city if the roads and highways become slick. On the other hand, daytime highs above 65 °F (18 °C) are not unusual during the winter season. Extremes in weather are more readily seen in Dallas and Texas as a whole than along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, due to the state's location in the interior of the United States.

Spring and autumn bring pleasant weather to the area. Vibrant wildflowers (such as the bluebonnet, Indian paintbrush and other flora) bloom in spring and are planted around the highways throughout Texas. Springtime weather can be quite volatile, but temperatures themselves are mild. The weather in Dallas is also generally pleasant between late September and early December, and unlike springtime, major storms rarely form in the area.

In the spring, cool fronts moving south from Canada collide with warm, humid air streaming in from the Gulf Coast. When these fronts meet over north central Texas, severe thunderstorms are generated with spectacular lightning shows, torrents of rain, hail, and occasionally, tornadoes. Over time, tornadoes have perhaps been the biggest natural threat to the city.

Summers are hot, with temperatures approaching those of desert and semidesert locations of similar latitude. Heat waves can be severe.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture places Dallas in Plant Hardiness Zone 8a.

The city's all-time recorded high temperature is 113 °F (45 °C) during the Heat Wave of 1980, while the all-time recorded low is −8 °F (−22 °C) in 1980 and 1899 respectively.[7] The average daily low in Dallas is 57.1 °F (13.9 °C) and the average daily high in Dallas is 76.7 °F (24.8 °C). Dallas receives approximately 37.1 inches (942 mm) of equivalent rain per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Dallas

I have seen the possible future for the climate of the Twin Cities, and you may not like it. I hated summer in Dallas. So, most likely, will you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You heard it here, though! Bush has the fundraising advantage, and is the most-likely nominee. However, if Bush-fatique sets in and Republicans choose an alternative, it will be Rubio; not Walker, not Carson, and not Cruz for sure; not Jindal, Graham, Fiorina or Kasich or any of the others, and probably not Christie, Ryan or Paul, although I expect Christie could make a comeback before he falls, and Paul might be #3.

If Rob Portman gets into it, he could be formidable. He is just emerging from his Saturn Return though, and that could delay a run until it is too late.

Flat58's favorite Democrat Joe Manchin actually has some good chart numbers, but he's probably too moderate for real Democrats from outside his region, and he's as old as Hillary. Webb has good numbers too, but really is no alternative to Hillary for similar reasons. There are many Democrats with horoscope numbers as good or better than Hillary, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But the other factors seem to favor Hillary over the others. She may not cruise to victory as easily as it now appears, though.

Joe Manchin would be worth it if he brought Southern whites into the Democratic fold. This 4T will not be resolved until Southern white people start recognizing that the plutocrats that they now see as political allies, due to a shared contempt for 'rootless cosmopolitans' of 'liberal' areas, intend to exploit them badly.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

This really belongs in "Global Warming", and I will take it there.



It depends on where you are in Minnesota -- and when you will be there.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Minnesota

(in fact, the latitudinal and longitudinal extents of Minnesota themselves imply some diversity).

Minnesota is infamous for brutal winters, but the state is not uniformly cold in the winter.

"Frostbite Falls, Minnesota"

the city best known (Rochester, Minnesota) for the Mayo Clinic

But what could you expect of an inland state that extends north and south by 5 1/2 degrees of latitude? Summers in southern Minnesota are hot and humid.

So if you are in Rochester, Minnesota, your climate is already much closer to that of Des Moines, Iowa than to that of Duluth, Bemidji, or "Frostbite Falls" before any global warming.

Global warming will change the culture of your state. Southern Minnesota will progressively become more like Iowa and northern Missouri, which still have some cultural similarities. Southern Missouri is very different. You will wilt in the summer heat as I did in the short time in which I lived in Arkansas. (Of course that assumes that Minnesota will still be humid; if it isn't then it will have a "dry heat" characteristic of the Texas Panhandle. But predictions about rainfall are not so reliable as those of heat). If Minnesota gets dry heat, then there go the 10,000 lakes so much a part of Minnesota culture and recreation. If it simply gets hot, then those lakes will not be so enjoyable.

One thing that I noticed about Arkansas: in the summer, people started developing a lassitude that travelers noticed about people living in oppressively-hot climates -- like India. I noticed that in myself in Dallas, Texas, which has tropical summers and chilly winters. That really is climate, and British colonial officials started noticing that in themselves. I don't know whether you will like that.

That's before I discuss Louisiana.

But I know Dallas, having lived there for seventeen years:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Dallas

I have seen the possible future for the climate of the Twin Cities, and you may not like it. I hated summer in Dallas. So, most likely, will you.

I live in the southern 1/3 of the state in a southeastern suburb of St. Paul, MN. You don't have to teach me about Minnesota. I was born here. I grew up here. I'm very familiar with the state.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I live in the southern 1/3 of the state in a southeastern suburb of St. Paul, MN. You don't have to teach me about Minnesota. I was born here. I grew up here. I'm very familiar with the state.

Yes, but you generalized about Minnesota climate.

Your understanding of global warming, as well as its consequences, is weak. Your part of Minnesota just would not be the same if it had a climate like that of any part of Arkansas.