One of the factors of conditions of place is degree of impervious surface, and how that contributes to heating of cities. The contribution is not only direct heat bouncing off pavement and rooftops, but also in the impact this has on water tables, and surface/groundwater quantities. Increased impervious surface increases runoff, decreases the amount of water that is allowed to infiltrate, and therefore percolate into groundwater aquifers, or travel as interflow to feed rivers and streams. And its not just paving of open space that contributes to this, but also the filling of wetlands for construction.

There has to be an impact in regard to local heating, but also to the cooling affect of the earth with a supply of water beneath it, or in a waterbody. Perhaps in one small area it wouldn't seem like much of an impact, (or that the impact is only felt locally) but if you consider the US as a whole, per se, doesn't this contribute, quite possibly, to a significant degree?

Given that there is soooooo much unnecessary construction of pharmacies, strip malls and the like, that don't really improve the livability of a place, why is it that developers are given such carte blanc to do whatever they want where ever they want? Environmental regs and protections/impact rarely seem to make a difference. They just sue to get their way. Community groups that attempt to keep development to a minimum only occasionally keep things at bay.

Over development and increase in impervious surface is having a devistating impact on watersheds everywhere, and wehre the storm water program is rather successful in a handful of random locations and actually quite well designed, were it implented as it was intended, it is largely ignored in many more. Why is there not more outcry about this? The health of our watersheds is linked dramatically to global climatic health, or so it seems to be in my thinking. Its not just the weather, but everything, globally, that is being impacted. There needs to be a much increased degree to the outreach and education of these issues nationwide. Its not nearly enough to be available to those who are already concerned and whose support comes naturally. In order for there to be a paradigm shift, which is what we need, the education against the rhetoric needs to be significantly stronger. It needs to reach those who otherwise would not seek it out. And the discussion needs to be inclusive of some of the more random parameters affecting the shift. kinda like the butterfly effect. yes?

The shift in global winds has actually been taking place over a period of several decades, not eight years. Note that I wrote: "The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979." I simply pointed to the western drought from 1999 to the present as an illustration of the possible consequences of a shift in climatic zones. I also stated that the current western drought is complex, with other factors contributing to it, including changes in the hydrological cycle that I discussed in an earlier post.

There will still be short-term fluctuations in the climate as the Earth goes through an overall warming trend. So there will still be cold spells, and wet spells in desertifying regions, such as the recent two months of relative wetness in the western U.S. that you pointed to.