Originally Posted by Mikebert

Mechanisms are provided that explain how rising inequality in agrarian societies eventually leads to state collapse, high levels of intra-elite violence and reduction in elite numbers. This last thing is what produces falling inequality in both agrarian and industrial societies. It is accomplished by a combination of elites killing each other and emergence of new strongmen (e.g. Augustus, Henry VII, FDR).

I have just read a history of the Byzantine Empire and I have noticed this EXACT dynamic in the period from Justinian to the 4th Crusade. Very interesting!

The Byzantines seem to have been particularly susceptible to this because their military and border defense was so strongly tied to levies of free-holding peasants, and there were several cycles of strong emperors cutting the aristocrats down to size and redistributing land to peasants followed by the aristocrats clawing back their huge estates, influencing and dominating weak or under-aged emperors, and engaging in petty squabbling while invaders were plundering the empire because of underpowered peasant levies.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Bob, interesting observations. I think your thinking is somewhat constrained by the S&H paradigm in which they are placed. I have looked at ways to empirically validate the existence of the S&H cycle for 15 years and have failed to do so. I no longer think they got the basic long-term cycle in Anglo-American history right. Based on my work, the cycle with the best empirical support is the secular cycle. David Fisher focuses on this cycle using price as his empirical measure in The Great Wave, which some here have read. Peter Turchin traces out eight secular cycles/great waves in his Secular Cycles. historian like Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror and the massive amount written on "the Crisis of the 17th century" have described the Crisis portion of secular cycles. Jack Goldstone formulated a theory of such crisis with considerable explanatory power.

I have long thought your interests lie strongly in economic and scientific areas. I'm more focused on large scale values shift. In economics, it is certainly far easier to find metrics than in values. Still, I find the S&H language useful in examining issues of cultural change that aren't tied to money. The S&H perspective on Anglo-American history remains of interest to me, but I don't think it primal and permanent. A pattern can hold for a time then vanish. I am inclined to think that is happening, that the 1930s through 1960s introduced enough traumatic transformations that any rhythm that existed has been disrupted. Still, as you say, no metrics. I can describe a personal feeling and perspective, but don't think I could prove it more valid than Eric's or Cynic's.

Still, the language seems useful, at least in this community where we are all familiar with it. I can suggest we are in an extended unraveling that's might go all the way back to Nixon. I can talk about spirals of violence and spirals of rhetoric building to active transformations in the form of Crises and Awakenings without implying that a rigid clockwork generation by generation schedule is inevitable.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

One of the empirical measures of secular cycles is economic inequality. It peaks at the crisis period. In agrarian times inequality was closely tied to price, so peaks are seen around 1320 and 1620 and 1800 in the UK. In America inequality seems to have been declining from a higher level through the late 18th cent. to about 1820, rising to about 1910, falling to about 1960 and rising since.

This is a nice measurable dialectic that ought to exist in many to most cultures. It speaks to values as well as economics. This is the sort of thing historians might wish to be more aware of. I'll note that it can be a dialectic without being cyclical. The elites might have more and then less power as history progresses without a clear sine wave of fixed period being present. This would make it no less interesting. For example, the farm tractor and resultant migration to the cities mucked up the traditional predominantly agricultural economy of the US. I wouldn't expect the same forces and dynamics to be in place before, during and after this transition. Thus, even if there was at one point a regular harmonic pattern, I would expect distortion and frequency shift.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

In Turchin's account both conservatives and liberals are right as far as causes of the inequality problem of today. Tax cuts AND immigration are both key engines of inequality. Mechanisms are provided that explain how rising inequality occurs. Mechanisms are provided that explain how rising inequality in agrarian societies eventually leads to state collapse, high levels of intra-elite violence and reduction in elite numbers. This last thing is what produces falling inequality in both agrarian and industrial societies. It is accomplished by a combination of elites killing each other and emergence of new strongmen (e.g. Augustus, Henry VII, FDR).

Mechanisms for how a trend reversal from rising to falling inequality can occur without mass slaughter of elites are not provided. What is offered is a verbal explanation that involves elite fears of mass rebellion invoked by the high levels in internal violence in the teens often tinged with radicalism occurring at the same time as revolution in Russia. These fears somehow encouraged elites to enact policies that would reduce their wealth and influence. I find this hard to believe since America saw a great deal more internal unrest in the 1860's, including civil war, that had no impact at all on proliferating elites and rising inequality. If the early 20th century violence caused elite panic leading to a national income tax and curtailing immigration, why were elites so blasé about looming Civil War in the 1950's?

In America we don't have elites slaughtering each other Game of Thrones style. We did it through confiscatory taxation, sharp reducing in immigration (reducing labor supply) and government economic management deliberately biased in favor of workers over capital. Why did elites sign on to this?

My gut feeling is a new class of elite arose from the what once was called "the middle classes" or the bourgeois, call them the Mandarins after the Chinese social class. The elite status of mandarins comes from elite education and successful professional careers rather than success in business. Both are also hereditary. Successful rebellions of commoners are essentially unknown in history--unless they are elite-led. The trend reversal in the early 20th century that culminated in the New Deal and WW II economic policies were generated an electoral commoner rebellion led by "the Progressives", members of the bourgeois appalled by the social consequences of industrialization, who led a political movement that gave us the Income tax, direct election of senators, women's suffrage and prohibition. Also achieved was immigration restriction (I don't know the history of this). They came from both parties and eventually played a major role in the New Deal. In the aftermath were had a new society with two kinds of elites, business-derived one, represented by the Republican party (who had been on the losing side in the secular cycle crisis resolution) and the new Mandarins (represented by the Democratic party). Today both kinds are full-fledged members of the elites and will look out for elite interests. Neither side wants to curtail immigration or raise taxes on their income (Mandarins support modestly higher tax rates--but only on marginal income above theirs, Business elites support only those anti-immigration actions that are known to have no impact on the labor supply).

Perhaps a new category of elite will arise, neither commercial nor educational in nature. Lacking wealth they can lead a commoner movement calling for confiscatory taxes on the rich, immigration restriction and economic policies that benefit rank-and-file Americans.

I am not seeing a need for a new category or structure of elite, which may be part of the problem. During the Agricultural Age, the elite balanced power among themselves with land possession and arranged marriages. Today we exchange stocks and hold elections. This was a large traumatic change. Achieving it required revolutions and civil wars. The proponents of the new sciences and industries just could not achieve and manage power using the old techniques. As you say, most successful transformations were backed by elites. With changing technology, with changing centers of profit, new methods of managing and governing had to be put in place. If the newly wealthy had a need, it was generally not difficult to convince the oppressed masses to come along for the ride.

Technology isn't holding still. I can see new fields such as renewable energy and genetic engineering continuing to transform the economy and culture. I'm not seeing that these new technologies will require a new type of corporate or government structure. The existing approach seems adequate to the needs of the elites. One buys and sells stocks and senators.

I think the core issue in the US is a Red rural population that still resents and distrusts the changes of the New Deal through Great Society programs more than they distrust the wealthy elites. So long as the wealthy elites can milk this, a government of for and by the people, rather than of, for and by the elites, doesn't seem likely. No, it isn't likely quite that simple, but again I see no wave of inevitable change on this side of the horizon.

Going back to Global Warming, a bit ago we touched on a weakening Gulf Stream as part of this last Winter's unusual weather. Here the West Coast ocean specialists weigh in from the other side. CNN reports Blob of warm Pacific water threatens ecosystem, may intensify drought. Again, changes at sea effect weather on land. Again, no one seems to know how much of the change at sea is long term and how much was a few freak years.

The reporter suggests that "The Blob" isn't a very menacing moniker. I don't know that he is a fan of old science fiction.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

According to the US government actuarial tables, a 68-year-old American male has a 50-50 chance of living another 15 1/2 years. That would be making it to 83-84. Assuming that you keep in shape, are a normal weight (which you were when I met you in person nearly 10 years ago) and don't smoke, that brings the odds more in your favor.

So yes, death prior to 81 is always a real possibility, but the odds are, barring some cataclysm, that you will make it to 85 and see at least some of the 1T.

Thanks for the good cheer. Men in my family have had a horrible history of dying young, but I'm already outside that window. I'll do my best to live until my mid-80s ... I promise. How much beyond that is a bit more problematic. As my 94-year old FIL noted just a week ago, getting old is not for wimps.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I think the core issue in the US is a Red rural population that still resents and distrusts the changes of the New Deal through Great Society programs more than they distrust the wealthy elites. So long as the wealthy elites can milk this, a government of for and by the people, rather than of, for and by the elites, doesn't seem likely.

Here you are expressing a belief that change does come from the bottom. There has never been such thing as government of for and by the people. All state societies feature rule by elite(s). They must or collapse back to a tribal or even band level of organization.

Change always comes from elites who mobilize commoners to accomplish their objectives. Commoners can get better deals from some elites over others, and this is where they exert their power.

Right now there exists no elite faction that wants to make common cause with commoners. If commoners become increasingly agitated about their condition some new groups of elite may emerge who will do this. The key mechanism that leads to crisis is over production of elites. New elites find it hard to find a position in the hierarchy that comports with their expectations and so they are willing to work with radicals. Radical means root, a radical want to make fundamental changes, deal a new hand that might contain better cards than the set they have now. Frustrated elites can join radical movements, which if they can channel commoner anger could be successful. A modern example is Ted Cruz. He is obviously not interested in actually becoming president. He is appears to be running for president as a means to a different end: Head Cheese of the modern conservative movement. Any movement has to have functionaries. Jobs for politically-orientated conservatives. Think of all those kids getting degrees in poly sci.

An earlier example was the New Deal. Lots of down-on-their-luck elites found a job and a mission in working for one of the alphabet agencies.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Going back to Global Warming, a bit ago we touched on a weakening Gulf Stream as part of this last Winter's unusual weather. Here the West Coast ocean specialists weigh in from the other side. CNN reports Blob of warm Pacific water threatens ecosystem, may intensify drought. Again, changes at sea effect weather on land. Again, no one seems to know how much of the change at sea is long term and how much was a few freak years.

The reporter suggests that "The Blob" isn't a very menacing moniker. I don't know that he is a fan of old science fiction.

Apparently, the Blob is actually a super-blob, created from two blobs that merged. It is known that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) consists of areas that warm and later cool, but the oscillation rate is complex and irregular. The real issue is the nature of the Blob itself. Is this a uniquely large and possible persistent feature, or merely a more pronounced than normal version of the PDO? According to the story I read, and the CNN account seems consistent, this may be a precursor of a warm dry west and cold wet east ... or not. In the recent past, the oscillation has reversed 1924/5, 1945/6 and 1976/7. If AGW hasn't changed the pattern, another shift is due or overdue.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Here you are expressing a belief that change does come from the bottom. There has never been such thing as government of for and by the people. All state societies feature rule by elite(s). They must or collapse back to a tribal or even band level of organization.

Change always comes from elites who mobilize commoners to accomplish their objectives. Commoners can get better deals from some elites over others, and this is where they exert their power.

Right now there exists no elite faction that wants to make common cause with commoners. If commoners become increasingly agitated about their condition some new groups of elite may emerge who will do this. The key mechanism that leads to crisis is over production of elites. New elites find it hard to find a position in the hierarchy that comports with their expectations and so they are willing to work with radicals. Radical means root, a radical want to make fundamental changes, deal a new hand that might contain better cards than the set they have now. Frustrated elites can join radical movements, which if they can channel commoner anger could be successful. A modern example is Ted Cruz. He is obviously not interested in actually becoming president. He is appears to be running for president as a means to a different end: Head Cheese of the modern conservative movement. Any movement has to have functionaries. Jobs for politically-orientated conservatives. Think of all those kids getting degrees in poly sci.

An earlier example was the New Deal. Lots of down-on-their-luck elites found a job and a mission in working for one of the alphabet agencies.

A lot of things are required, a lot of stuff has to happen. I'm not going to write a fixed recipe for which comes first, which is most important. You can read history as well as I.

You want rabble rousers in the line of Thomas Paine or William Lloyd Garrison to get the spiral of rhetoric going. These days, they'd likely be found on a cable news channel. There's no lack of them today, but any progressive voices are balanced by conservative voices. They are drowning each other out to the point that no one is listening. Nothing is currently spiraling.

You'd want someone within spitting distance of S&H's Grey Champion archetype, a writer, speaker and idealist with practical political experience and the ability to compromise. People like Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Winston Churchill are rarer than rare, but that's what you want, someone who might care more for ideas, principles and a place in history than the well being of their social class.

You do need the folk on the bottom. All the eloquence and idealism means nothing if the People aren't listening and able to perceive that the new ideas are to their benefit. Values are very very stubborn. The status quo is very difficult to overcome. No matter how eloquent and relevant the speaker, his world view has to resonate with the People or his words won't be heard.

The flaws in the current society have to be blatant and obvious. Otherwise, the old world view will resonate better with the People than the new one. If the established elites keep the huddled masses only mildly miserable, the elites are likely good to go. The Establishment has to get greedy to an extent far beyond reason before their position is at risk. If the New Deal is the benchmark for measuring economic spirals of rhetoric, if you want a measurable metric as to where we are in the spiral, compare the 1930s Hoovervilles to today's. Last century's disasters were of such great magnitude as Keynesian economics and similar approaches to government control of the economy were new, experimental and untrusted. Many argued that democratic capitalism had collapsed and failed, that communist revolution was the remaining option. FDR was democratic capitalism's last shot, IMHO, before the deluge. Fascism and Communism were seemingly state of the art. We are not in that neighborhood today, no where close.

There is certainly more to be said, but this is likely enough for now.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... The flaws in the current society have to be blatant and obvious. Otherwise, the old world view will resonate better with the People than the new one. If the established elites keep the huddled masses only mildly miserable, the elites are likely good to go. The Establishment has to get greedy to an extent far beyond reason before their position is at risk. If the New Deal is the benchmark for measuring economic spirals of rhetoric, if you want a measurable metric as to where we are in the spiral, compare the 1930s Hoovervilles to today's. Last century's disasters were of such great magnitude as Keynesian economics and similar approaches to government control of the economy were new, experimental and untrusted. Many argued that democratic capitalism had collapsed and failed, that communist revolution was the remaining option. FDR was democratic capitalism's last shot, IMHO, before the deluge. Fascism and Communism were seemingly state of the art. We are not in that neighborhood today, no where close...

This may be true in the US, but a new paradigm is emerging in Europe. I can't tell if it's neo-Fascist, hyper-nationalist or just xenophobic, but the parties on the rise are on the right. With the left effectively neutered, I guess that's to be expected. So, is UKIP a precursor for USIP? Scott Walker seems to think so, and the Kochs are right there with the money to make it so.

There are only two responses to financial distress: mount an offense or build a defense. The offense has a lot harder task, because the risks are greater. Benjamin Franklin didn't warn against hanging separately because the revolutionaries were being rude. They were a threat, and would have been dealt with as such. They could have tried something passive-aggressive, like boycotts. Oh yeah, they did. It didn't work. So desperation lead to the open warfare option; everything else had failed.

The easier, and less effective option is a form of defense. In the current case, it would involve depriving 'them' of things 'we' need or want. We can end immigration, even illegal immigration, by depriving 'them' of income, as we have in the past. We can stop trading with 'them', and only buy things made by 'us'. Throw in a loyalty oath here and there, and the whole enterprise will have a very familiar feel.

We see Europe toying with the second option, and some here are not opposed to that either. Since the brave option is not happening, due almost entirely to a lack of leadership, we may have to test the viability of the lesser, more fascist choice. Scott Walker seems to be the test case.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The S&H perspective on Anglo-American history remains of interest to me, but I don't think it primal and permanent. A pattern can hold for a time then vanish. I am inclined to think that is happening, that the 1930s through 1960s introduced enough traumatic transformations that any rhythm that existed has been disrupted. Still, as you say, no metrics. I can describe a personal feeling and perspective, but don't think I could prove it more valid than Eric's or Cynic's.

I have found in my study of patterns that they can indeed "hold for a time and then vanish." Some are more permanent than others. But the meaning of a cycle depends on our mindset and habits; how we respond to events. We evolve and change.

Did traumatic transformations happen between the 1930s and 1960s that disrupted all rhythms? I doubt it, because that "traumatic transformation" (larger than usual) was right on schedule according to the cycle of civilizations, which has been noticed by many historians. The astrological timing indicator I use is of course the 500-year Neptune-Pluto cycle. Having started in circa 1892, it took some decades to play out, and may not even be finished yet; and that is normal. But this cycle sets a basic stage in which the other cycles play out, rather than disrupting all other cycles.

Although, you could say that the previous such cycle, having begun in circa 1400, the Renaissance-Enlightenment-European imperialist era of civilization, set the stage for the existence of the saeculum as we came to know it, and so it might belong to that era of civilization only. But mikebert and others say it existed before then, and it certainly seemed to continue through the 20th century in even more powerful fashion. So I don't see a basis for saying it will stop now.

Still, the language seems useful, at least in this community where we are all familiar with it. I can suggest we are in an extended unraveling that's might go all the way back to Nixon. I can talk about spirals of violence and spirals of rhetoric building to active transformations in the form of Crises and Awakenings without implying that a rigid clockwork generation by generation schedule is inevitable.

Technology isn't holding still. I can see new fields such as renewable energy and genetic engineering continuing to transform the economy and culture. I'm not seeing that these new technologies will require a new type of corporate or government structure. The existing approach seems adequate to the needs of the elites. One buys and sells stocks and senators.

I think the core issue in the US is a Red rural population that still resents and distrusts the changes of the New Deal through Great Society programs more than they distrust the wealthy elites. So long as the wealthy elites can milk this, a government of for and by the people, rather than of, for and by the elites, doesn't seem likely. No, it isn't likely quite that simple, but again I see no wave of inevitable change on this side of the horizon.

I do, mainly because of how I read the cycles. I also see how things are going, and see that it can't continue. Technology is not the only reason for a new political-economic structure. Our nation, government, ecology and economy are dysfunctional now, and it seems this is enough to require some change on a scale more drastic than usual in the 2020s. It won't be as drastic as those of the early to mid-20th century perhaps, but in terms only of our American state and how it looks and runs, it could be. Some of the elite classes may back these changes, but not all; that seems enough.

The revolution in renewables is coming.

The Age of Wind and Solar Is Closer Than You Think
Renewable energy, spurred by a crisis in climate, may usurp fossil fuels by mid-century

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-age-of-wind-and-solar-is-closer-than-you-think/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_cam paign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-Twitter+%28Content%3A+Global+Twitter+Feed%29
… "The transition to renewables will be hastened by dramatic improvements in the pricing and performance of such systems. Due to steady increases in the efficiency of wind and solar systems, coupled with the savings achieved through large-scale manufacture, the price of renewables is falling globally. Deutsche Bank reports that the total module costs sustained by leading Chinese solar companies has decreased by 62 percent over the past few years, falling from $1.31 per watt in 2011 to $0.50 in 2014; further reductions, it says, will occur over the next few years. With prices dropping this fast, solar energy is now proving competitive with fossil fuels for generating electricity in many areas. As if to confirm this development, the Electricity and Water Authority of oil-rich Dubai recently awarded a $330-million contract to a Saudi firm for construction of a 200-megawatt solar electricity plant, touting its superior price for delivered power over oil and gas-fired plants.”…

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can end immigration, even illegal immigration, by depriving 'them' of income, as we have in the past. We can stop trading with 'them', and only buy things made by 'us'. Throw in a loyalty oath here and there, and the whole enterprise will have a very familiar feel.

Why should rank and file Americans support free trade or free immigration when it benefits the rich at their expense?

Originally Posted by B Butler

The flaws in the current society have to be blatant and obvious.

Do they? From the perspective of an ordinary American farmer what exactly was the flaw of being an English colony, as opposed to an independent state. American common people were the most prosperous and free commoners in the Empire before and after the Revolution.

The people who stood to gain from the revolt were elites. Merchants in an independent America did not have to worry about British mercantile law. Landowners were able to place men drawn from their ranks in all executive government positions. They would able to choose what wars America would fight. And they became the social equals of the British elites, who before had looked down on them as commoners. Bostonians would not have to compete with impoverished British mercenaries, the troops were gone. And when Britain later banned slavery, American slaveowners did not have to comply.

A similar situation existed for the Civil War. The big winners (and losers) from the outcome of the war were elites (Northern industrialists and Southern plantation owners). Ordinary Americas died like flies for objectives set by their leaders.

Think about it, its really bizarre. Millions of very racist white men slaughtered each other for four years in order to free the slaves, something virtually all of them had opposed before the war. Look at the outcome. After freeing the slaves what did the victorious Northerners do? Did they do the obvious thing and settle the newly freed-slaves out West. There was a lot of space out there, they could have set up areas for each race so they would be among their own. They could provide them a grubstake (tools, wagon supplies for the journey) and choose leaders from amongst them would who lead them West. This would have solved "the race problem" effectively and cheaply. But it would require getting very racist Whites to go out of their way to help Black people. Something like ain't ever gonna happen, and it didn't.

So why on earth did hundreds of thousands of white Americans who didn't give a shit about Black people give their lives to free them from slavery? Because their elites led them to it, just as they led hundreds of thousands of young Americans to kill and maim Iraqi people who had never done any harm to them.

It was only the last 4T that produced a result that benefited rank and file Americans. But here's the funny thing. The New Deal accomplished a bullet list of objectives designed to benefit ordinary Americans. The theory behind the list was sound; they worked when implemented. So the homework was done. The curious thing was these new ideas and the homework behind them had already been done by the Populists in the 1890's. Lacking sufficient elite support, the Populists utterly failed. Some of the things they wanted actually were implemented before the New Deal by Progressive elites. Most of the rest by Democratic elites in the 1930's. During WW II the Democratic elites went further and really did a number on their Republican counterparts (to the victor go the spoils) and we got three decades of widespread prosperity after WW II.

Today the economic problems are not greatly different than last 4T. I can see no action because I can see no elites interested. Even M&L, who typically decries our economic state of affairs is reluctant to consider solutions with proven track records, as am I.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why should rank and file Americans support free trade or free immigration when it benefits the rich at their expense?

Free trade -- you work for a company that depends upon foreign trade or is a foreign company. Cheap stuff, especially textiles and electronics, from other countries.

(The fallacy: if you were getting higher pay, you could better afford an American-made TV that costs $800 than something similar made in China and retailing tor about $500).

Free immigration -- A prospective non-citizen spouse.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why should rank and file Americans support free trade or free immigration when it benefits the rich at their expense?

That's exactly why the UKIP and National Front, among many others, are gaining ground so quickly. This is one area that the rank-and-file can actually decipher pretty easily. We tend to slam the immigration gate closed and stop buying imports about the same time, and those times are similar to now. The question is, will we this time?

Europe is a bit ahead of us here, but this will arrive on our doorstep soon. Whether the nativists are able to capitalize on it here is still TBD.

Batteries are advancing; my predicted green energy boom is on the way!

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/tesl...ext-week-49554

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's exactly why the UKIP and National Front, among many others, are gaining ground so quickly. This is one area that the rank-and-file can actually decipher pretty easily. We tend to slam the immigration gate closed and stop buying imports about the same time, and those times are similar to now. The question is, will we this time?

As far as that goes, the Republican Party has its own influential and powerful "UKIP"-style and "National Front" - style faction. Of course I loathe this faction and find it discrediting to anyone who would use it.

A good lesson to people today as it was nearly 70 years ago: "Don't Be a Sucker!"

Europe is a bit ahead of us here, but this will arrive on our doorstep soon. Whether the nativists are able to capitalize on it here is still TBD.

Will arrive? It doesn't need rabble-rousers on street corners. It has the Internet to play with.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's exactly why the UKIP and National Front, among many others, are gaining ground so quickly. This is one area that the rank-and-file can actually decipher pretty easily. We tend to slam the immigration gate closed and stop buying imports about the same time, and those times are similar to now. The question is, will we this time?

Europe is a bit ahead of us here, but this will arrive on our doorstep soon. Whether the nativists are able to capitalize on it here is still TBD.

I'm suggesting they have a point. Also, that they are on the Left, despite their conservative ideology.

Like Classic X'er or not, my response to him in another thread really belongs here:

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.

CO2 levels are just reaching 400 ppm. 400 ppm was typical of the Pliocene atmosphere some 3 million years ago. In that ancient 400 ppm world, sea level is estimated to have been 10 to 40 m higher than it is now. (ref)

This may be why the idea of Florida under water seems to have been in the news recently. Of course the whole issue is time scale. If the Florida remains habitable for the res tof the century I don't see it impacting current real estate prices there, in which case I don't see why Floridian Republicans would care about it. But if the time scale is significantly shorter there are major financial losses in the near future. Just because a person is conservative, votes Republican, and advocates for conservative economic policy doesn't mean they will put their money where their beliefs are.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

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 don't see the warming as much of a problem for Great Lake States residents. There is a possibility that it might get colder here because of global warming. Already we have had two really cold winters possible do to changes in polar circulation patterns resulting from reduction in polar ice coverage. As CO2 rises we will get ice melting ion land that will mean rising seas level. Although a problem for the coasts (not us) it is possible that the addition of all that fresh water to the surface will affect ocean circulation patterns retaining more heat at the tropics. This might be mean parts of Texas and the Southwest become uninhabitable. It might also mean cold temperatures in the north with a much smaller temperate zone, but I think this is probably unlikely, at least in my time.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't see the warming as much of a problem for Great Lake States residents. There is a possibility that it might get colder here because of global warming. Already we have had two really cold winters possible do to changes in polar circulation patterns resulting from reduction in polar ice coverage. As CO2 rises we will get ice melting ion land that will mean rising seas level. Although a problem for the coasts (not us) it is possible that the addition of all that fresh water to the surface will affect ocean circulation patterns retaining more heat at the tropics. This might be mean parts of Texas and the Southwest become uninhabitable. It might also mean cold temperatures in the north with a much smaller temperate zone, but I think this is probably unlikely, at least in my time.

Two such years. But the year before that we had practically no winter in southern Michigan... and some days of 80F temperatures in March. We will need winter blizzards to put moisture into the soil.

Once the Greenland ice sheet is gone, the melt water from Greenland will not push southward against the Gulf Stream. The northern Atlantic could be really warm, and that would ensure that cold waves don't [ush southward into the northeastern US.

If 'years without winter' become the norm, then we would see something very different. I can't say what. It could be tall-grass prairie with some scattered trees. It could be Mediterranean near the Great Lakes. It could also be subtropical forest like much of the American Southeast.

Global warming is of course a high-risk gamble with little upside and much downside. The people who stand to be hurt worst are peasant farmers in the Third World... to some, expendable people.

Toward the end of his annual speech to the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in the nation's capital Saturday night, President Obama got "angry." Aided by Luther, his "anger translator" (a character played by Comedy Central's Keegan-Michael Key, from the TV show Key and Peele), President Obama launched into an epic tirade against climate deniers on Capitol Hill.

For those who aren't familiar with the set-up of the skit featured on Key and Peele: "No-drama Obama" (played by Jordan Peele) can't risk getting angry in public, so Luther translates what he's really thinking, behind all the political softball rhetoric. It's quite brilliant.

When the real Obama got around to mentioning the big challenge of climate change on Saturday, Luther chimed in, filling in Obama's supposedly unspoken rage: "California is bone-dry! It looks like the trailer for the new Max Max movie. You think Bradley Cooper came here because he wanted to talk to Chuck Todd? He wanted a glass of water! Come on!"

Eventually, though, Obama didn't need his anger translator anymore:

"Look at what's happening right now. Every serious scientist says we need to act," Obama said, pitch and volume rising. "The Pentagon says it's a national security risk. Miami floods on a sunny day, and instead of doing anything about it, we've got elected officials throwing snowballs in the Senate! It is crazy! What about our kids?! What kind of stupid, short-sighted, irresponsible…"

Luther finally intervenes:

"With all due respect, sir? You don't need an anger translator. You need counseling."

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Two such years. But the year before that we had practically no winter in southern Michigan... and some days of 80F temperatures in March.

I recall well. We lost the cherry crop that year. What I wanted to note was the possibility that the effects locally might not simply be the the global trend superimposed on out local history. We could see non-linear effects with the possibility of colder winters (on average) all the way to dramatically warmer winters (on average) but with huge variability. I am hoping for the former, but after the last few years of very cold AND very warm winters I am beginning to wonder if it may be the latter

Where in W. Mich do you live?

Bloomberg and Sierra Club working to retire coal plants. Sounds good to me! Retiring Republican energy without retiring Republicans!

http://beyondcoal.bloomberg.org/?gcl...FUZafgod86cApQ



Bloomberg reports on the results of shutting down coal plants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLoB3SEV2I

The day the climate in Fargo becomes like Dallas is the day that I move to Anchorage, AK.