ADVERTISEMENT

Next to Alaska...or Detroit?

WATU2

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
May 29, 2001
13,093
200
63
On a Warmer Planet, Which Cities Will Be Safest?

Where in the United States might you find the most protection from future climate change? Clockwise, from top left: Detroit, Miami, Norfolk and Seattle may weather global warming very differently. Credit Andrew Burton/Getty Images; Joe Raedle/Getty Images; The' N. Pham/The Virginian-Pilot, via Associated Press; Elaine Thompson/Associated Press
Alaskans, stay in Alaska. People in the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest, sit tight.

Scientists trying to predict the consequences of climate change say that they see few havens from the storms, floods and droughts that are sure to intensify over the coming decades. But some regions, they add, will fare much better than others.

Forget most of California and the Southwest (drought, wildfires). Ditto for much of the East Coast and Southeast (heat waves, hurricanes, rising sea levels). Washington, D.C., for example, may well be a flood zone by 2100, according to an estimate released last week.

Instead, consider Anchorage. Or even, perhaps, Detroit.

"If you do not like it hot and do not want to be hit by a hurricane, the options of where to go are very limited," said Camilo Mora, a geography professor at the University of Hawaii and lead author of a paper published in Nature last year predicting that unprecedented high temperatures will become the norm worldwide by 2047.

"The best place really is Alaska," he added. "Alaska is going to be the next Florida by the end of the century."

Under any model of climate change, scientists say, most of the country will look and feel drastically different in 2050, 2100 and beyond, even as cities and states try to adapt and plan ahead. The northern Great Plains states may well be pleasant (if muggy) for future generations, as may many neighboring states. Although few people today are moving long distances to strategize for climate change, some are at least pondering the question of where they would go.

"The answer is the Pacific Northwest, and probably especially west of the Cascades," said Ben Strauss, vice president for climate impacts and director of the program on sea level rise at Climate Central, a research collaboration of scientists and journalists. "Actually, the strip of coastal land running from Canada down to the Bay Area is probably the best," he added. "You see a lot less extreme heat; it's the one place in the West where there's no real expectation of major water stress, and while sea level will rise there as everywhere, the land rises steeply out of the ocean, so it's a relatively small factor."

Clifford E. Mass, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington, writes a popular weather blog in which he predicts that the Pacific Northwest will be "a potential climate refuge" as global warming progresses. A Seattle resident, he foresees that "climate change migrants" will start heading to his city and to Portland, Ore., and surrounding areas.

"The Pacific Ocean is like our natural air conditioning," Professor Mass said in a telephone interview. "We don't get humidity like the East Coast does."

As for the water supply? "Water is important, and we will have it," Professor Mass declared. "All in all, it's a pretty benign situation for us - in fact, warming up just a little bit might be a little bit welcome around here."

Already, he said, Washington State is gearing up to become the next Napa Valley as California's wine country heats up and dries out.

"People are going crazy putting in vineyards in eastern Washington right now," he said.

There may be other refuges to the east. Don't count out the elevated inland cities in the country's midsection, like Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Milwaukee and Detroit, said Matthew E. Kahn, a professor of environmental economics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"I predict we're going to have millions of people moving to those areas," he said in a telephone interview.

In his 2010 book "Climatopolis," Professor Kahn predicts that when things get bad enough in any given location - not just the temperatures and extreme weather, but also the cost of insurance and so forth - people will become "environmental refugees," fleeing cities like Phoenix, Los Angeles and San Diego. By 2100, he writes, Detroit will be one of the nation's most desirable cities.

Continue reading the main story
Graphic
On the Cusp of Climate Change
Animal and plant species around the world may be threatened by warmer global temperatures.

OPEN Graphic
That assertion came as a surprise to Rachel Burnside-Saltmarshall, a former president of the Detroit Association of Realtors.

"I haven't come across that," Ms. Burnside-Saltmarshall said diplomatically, adding that there were more immediate municipal concerns. "Like crime - tell me when that's going to go down."

A report by United Van Lines looking at relocation trends in 2013 found that its customers were moving primarily for economic reasons - a new job, lower costs of living - or quality-of-life considerations that were not climate related, such as public transit or green space. Coincidentally, Oregon - a predicted climate-change winner - topped the list of inbound moves, followed by South Carolina, North Carolina, the District of Columbia and South Dakota. The top states for outbound moves were New Jersey, Illinois, New York, West Virginia and Connecticut.

"What we see is that people are actually moving into harm's way," said Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center. "They're moving from relatively safe places in the Midwest to places along the Florida coast, where the risk has been increasing."

In May, Miami was named one of the nation's most vulnerable cities in the National Climate Assessment, the third in a series of federal reports on how global warming will play out across the country. The week the report was released, Miami Beach residents were wading through ankle-deep waters on some of their main thoroughfares.

As sea levels rise in the decades ahead, said Professor Mass of the University of Washington, "if there's ground zero for where you don't want to be, Florida is it." Other particularly vulnerable places are the low-lying cities of the East and Gulf Coasts, he noted.

As for New York City, the nation's most populous city, Professor Mora at the University of Hawaii projects that 2047 will be the "year of climate change departure" - when weather that seems extraordinarily hot and catastrophic by today's standards will become the norm.

"The coasts are all going to be facing very hot temperatures," Professor Mora said. Washington, D.C., will reach its tipping point the same year, under his model; Los Angeles has until 2048; San Francisco, 2049 and Chicago, 2052. Detroit has until 2051, and Anchorage, 2071.

Some climate experts are optimistic that major cities will plan, adapt and ward off catastrophe. "New York has such a concentration of wealth and assets that I expect we will invest to defend the region from sea level rise and flooding, and there's already movement in that direction," said Mr. Strauss of Climate Central, a New York City resident.

But even in the places that are expected to come out ahead, the picture does not look entirely rosy.

"Summer in Minnesota is projected to be like the climate is in northern Oklahoma - the trees and the forests there, the crops that farmers plant," said Dr. Peterson of NOAA, citing the 2009 National Climate Assessment. "You build houses differently in Minnesota versus Oklahoma, you lay railroad tracks differently."

All in all, Dr. Peterson said, the changes will be highly disruptive, particularly over time. "We often talk about the climate from now 'til the end of this century, because that's kind of a nice model," he said, "But it's not going to end there - it's going to keep changing."

Next in Science

Too Much of a Good Thing
 
I found a report that if cut co2 , then trees will not have enough co2 to survive
Thus they will produce less oxygen, thus

We DIE!
 
Hurricanes? Geography professors as climatologists?? Oh the humanity!

"If you do not like it hot and do not want to be hit by a
hurricane, the options of where to go are very limited," said Camilo
Mora, a geography professor at the University of Hawaii and lead author
of a paper published in Nature last year predicting that unprecedented
high temperatures will become the norm worldwide by 2047.


The hurricane hype was a result of the Global Warming folks piling on after Katrina. If you actually look at the numbers, we have had unusually low hurricane activity for the past ten years and overall there is no increase in either number or severity of hurricanes over the last 60 years. The worst hurricane decade (number and intensity) was 1941 - 1950 followed by 1891 - 1900 and 1911 - 1920. Go here:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

It is important to note that NOAA has been a little slow to update the chart due to the lack of recent activity. Instead of dealing with hurricanes based on frequency and intensity, we now see a lot of statistics regarding "damage" based on dollars. Given the increase in building costs along with increased population density in coastal areas, the new method of reporting supports Global Warming (as long as you don't do any homework). Using the damage in dollars metric shows that 8 of the 10 worst hurricanes in history have occurred since 2000. However, only one of those storms was a Cat 4 and none were Cat 5. Go here:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/hurricane-statistics/

Thanks for the morning chuckle!
 
These guys have been wrong on practically every prediction on this topic for the last fifteen years. Why are papers still publishing their predictions and more importantly why do people still believe them? Not trying to beat anyone up here but if an organization is consistently wrong in its predictions isn't there a point where we should not only discount those predictions but not believe the same?
 
Anytime an article has these terms - "might be, may, trying to predict, may well be, estimate, model, as may many, and projected" is no more than just speculation to the extreme. Then if you base those "projections" as far in the future as 2071, (nearly 60 years in the future), then it isn't much more than science fiction and an attempt to distort present reality. Some of us will be 140 years old by then speaking Mandarin Chinese, spending Yuans and watching the newest infidel beheadings narrated by Chelsea Clinton on MSNBC.
dead.r191677.gif





This post was edited on 9/26 10:24 AM by rabidTU
 
Did you notice the big SUV that Al Gore was driving? He probably has one at each of his 4 or 5 mansions. He said the Artic Ice Cap would be long gone by now. He should try to drive his yacht through the Northwest Passage.

Propaganda works this way. You say it over and over. Predictions don't turn out you repeat them louder and more direly. You show pictures of steam at power plants when talking about CO2 which is invisible.
 
The two largest polluters going forward (China and India) appear to have little interest in any meaningful reductions to their CO2 emissions at this time. Both countries have basically blown off the latest climate summit. We need measures other than lip service from these two countries to have any hope of reducing global CO2 emissions.
 
Can't stand articles like this. Chock full of hyperbole and speculation just to draw page views. It really undercuts the people doing legitimate work and does more harm than good to the debate on how to address global warming issues going forward.
 
Originally posted by voetvoet:
Can't stand articles like this. Chock full of hyperbole and speculation just to draw page views. It really undercuts the people doing legitimate work and does more harm than good to the debate on how to address global warming issues going forward.
A very reasonable and reasoned response. There needs to be more fairness on both sides, myself included.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT