How will climate migration effect states' voting habits?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2024, 08:24:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  How will climate migration effect states' voting habits?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: How will climate migration effect states' voting habits?  (Read 2955 times)
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,816


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 15, 2022, 07:27:49 PM »

Louisiana was one of five states to swing Republican in 2008, due in part to the depopulation of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Interestingly, more than 22,500 Katrina migrants settled in Harris County, Texas, and may have played a part in that county's swing toward the Democrats in the following decade. With this example in mind, how will climate change shape the map going forward?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,114
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2022, 11:13:12 PM »

The Great Lakes region will be the number one destination for climate refugees. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois will see an increase in their EV totals. This will likely benefit Democrats somewhat but it could be a wash. It depends where they come from.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,816


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2022, 11:47:36 AM »


Flooding and a more long-term sea-level rise will be a problem in Florida and along the Gulf Coast and Chesapeake Bay. States that really rely on AC- Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, again, Florida- could face blackouts and rolling brownouts with heatwaves as both excess demand and the temperature increase. More frequent or intense hurricanes could also drive people away from Southern states. Sounds like Miami's screwed.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2022, 11:31:49 PM »

If its the Gulf Coast primarily from which the come, for the most part we are talking about Republicans.

Keep in mind there will also be a wealth skew in terms of those able to move.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,677
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2022, 10:51:06 AM »

If its the Gulf Coast primarily from which the come, for the most part we are talking about Republicans.

Keep in mind there will also be a wealth skew in terms of those able to move.

That can go both ways, though, because impoverished people have the most incentive to leave.  It was generally the poorest people who fled the Plains states during the Dust Bowl.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,816


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2022, 12:28:12 PM »
« Edited: October 20, 2022, 01:03:51 PM by Atomic-Statism »

If its the Gulf Coast primarily from which the come, for the most part we are talking about Republicans.

Keep in mind there will also be a wealth skew in terms of those able to move.

That can go both ways, though, because impoverished people have the most incentive to leave.  It was generally the poorest people who fled the Plains states during the Dust Bowl.

Also the case for Katrina migrants, who had to leave, and IIRC the city was repopulated in large part by gentrifiers especially post-Great Recession. With ideas like the Green New Deal and mutual aid floating around, we could also see a lot of idealistic young environmentalists and social workers flocking to devastated areas to help with reconstruction.
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,413
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2022, 08:47:54 PM »

I think overall, Climate Change will move the United States, and especially Europe in a more isolationist direction since foreign climate refugees are going to attempt to go to countries that won't be as badly effected, many of those will be in Europe, North America, and East Asia.


   In the United States, I'd expect an almost collapse in Florida's electoral votes between the first major flooding and the next census especially if there is a large death total.

   I expect most of the Western United States to see a decrease in population because of the desertification of land. (Definitely later in my life, 2050s-60s.)

   I agree with other posters that the Great Lakes region probably has the most to gain from Climate Refugees, though I wouldn't underestimate the Upper South.

   I think we'll see a more racial-rightward shift among whites as there is an influx of immigrants of Hispanic, and or African/Afro-Caribbean ethnicity. leading to a more isolationist and nativist approach to global politics, i.e. the weakening of NATO, the EU limiting freedom of movement, and overall rightward shift.


Logged
支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)
khuzifenq
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,385
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2022, 09:06:53 PM »

I think overall, Climate Change will move the United States, and especially Europe in a more isolationist direction since foreign climate refugees are going to attempt to go to countries that won't be as badly effected, many of those will be in Europe, North America, and East Asia.

I want some of whatever you’re smoking, good sir.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens to the West Coast, especially as 21st century urbanism (hopefully) becomes more fleshed out and put into action.
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,413
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2022, 09:18:14 PM »

I think overall, Climate Change will move the United States, and especially Europe in a more isolationist direction since foreign climate refugees are going to attempt to go to countries that won't be as badly effected, many of those will be in Europe, North America, and East Asia.

I want some of whatever you’re smoking, good sir.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens to the West Coast, especially as 21st century urbanism (hopefully) becomes more fleshed out and put into action.

Eh, yea, a good bit of east Asia is a stretch, I stand by the rest.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,859
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2023, 07:42:58 PM »

What can happen is that people will less travel south to Alligator or Cactus Country than they do now. Degradation of local climates and even inundations will be incremental.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,863
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2023, 12:44:42 PM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting. 
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,677
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2023, 08:52:35 AM »
« Edited: March 11, 2023, 12:33:13 PM by Skill and Chance »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting. 

Broadly agree this is overstated, and it's likely to occur gradually enough that it doesn't feel like anywhere in particular is collapsing.  It would be more like Millennial retirees going to Michigan in the same numbers that today's retirees go to Florida, and water rationing ratcheting up and leading to bans on new construction in Phoenix or Las Vegas. 

In terms of anything instantaneous enough to feel like a collapse from climate change, it would be a hurricane destroying Miami or Tampa or Houston to the same extent as what Katrina did to New Orleans.  NYC would also be narrowly in range of major hurricanes in a warmer climate.

With the current party coalitions, the outmigration from any natural disaster (whether CC related or not) would skew very Dem.  The laptop workers and retirees would leave first, followed by the very poor (with their moves likely subsidized), while landlords, owners of purely physical businesses (e.g. plumbing), and those with multi-generational ties would have the most incentive to stay.  To a lesser degree, parents of young children would be more likely to stay, too.  The people who moved to Florida for retirement or COVID WFH would be the first to leave. 
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2023, 12:38:11 PM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting. 

Broadly agree this is overstated, and it's likely to occur gradually enough that it doesn't feel like anywhere in particular is collapsing.  It would be more like Millennial retirees going to Michigan in the same numbers that today's retirees go to Florida, and water rationing ratcheting up and leading to bans on new construction in Phoenix or Las Vegas. 

In terms of anything instantaneous enough to feel like a collapse from climate change, it would be a hurricane destroying Miami or Tampa or Houston to the same extent as what Katrina did to New Orleans.  NYC would also be narrowly in range of major hurricanes in a warmer climate.

With the current party coalitions, the outmigration from any natural disaster (whether CC related or not) would skew very Dem.  The laptop workers and retirees would leave first, followed by the very poor (with their moves likely subsidized), while landlords, owners of purely physical businesses (e.g. plumbing), and those with multi-generational ties would have the most incentive to stay.  To a lesser degree, parents of young children would be more likely to stay, too.  The people who moved to Florida for retirement or COVID WFH would be the first to leave. 

Water can be recycled, levees can be built, desalination plants will ease water concerns over time, people can move cities further inland.

I certainly do agree with you that it is over stated and that it will be gradual over time. The upper midwest may be a hot spot decades in the future, but cities like Miami, Phoenix, and Las Vegas will all exist in 100 years.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,193
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2023, 02:06:21 PM »

You don't seriously think all of the net California-to-Texas migration is just business do you?
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,689
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2023, 09:25:02 AM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting. 

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,677
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2023, 01:47:14 PM »
« Edited: March 16, 2023, 02:39:33 PM by Skill and Chance »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting. 

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.


I'm not totally sold on mass retirement in the North TBH.  Currently, the northernmost states that take in significant retiree migration are North Carolina and Tennessee.  Do we really expect MI and WI to have winters like present day NC and TN by 2100?  For Canadian border states to compete directly with Florida for retirees would probably require an utterly catastrophic scenario where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US in an average winter!
Logged
支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)
khuzifenq
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,385
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2023, 02:50:59 PM »
« Edited: March 16, 2023, 04:02:57 PM by MRS. MEE SUM CHU »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting.  

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.


I'm not totally sold on mass retirement in the North TBH.  Currently, the northernmost states that take in significant retiree migration are North Carolina and Tennessee.  Do we really expect MI and WI to have winters like present day NC and TN by 2100?  For Canadian border states to compete directly with Florida for retirees would probably require an utterly catastrophic scenario where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US in an average winter!

They don’t need to have anywhere close to snow-free winters, although I agree that Midwest winters aren’t necessarily getting milder in the short to medium term. Not dying of heatstroke in heatwaves during the rest of the year is more important.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,677
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2023, 09:50:59 AM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting.  

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.


I'm not totally sold on mass retirement in the North TBH.  Currently, the northernmost states that take in significant retiree migration are North Carolina and Tennessee.  Do we really expect MI and WI to have winters like present day NC and TN by 2100?  For Canadian border states to compete directly with Florida for retirees would probably require an utterly catastrophic scenario where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US in an average winter!

They don’t need to have anywhere close to snow-free winters, although I agree that Midwest winters aren’t necessarily getting milder in the short to medium term. Not dying of heatstroke in heatwaves during the rest of the year is more important.

True, but wouldn't the person who wants to retire on the beach in Florida's present day climate end up on the beach in NC where it hasn't snowed in 20 years in this scenario, not in Michigan or New England?  I think there's some real risk of Florida losing population in the long run, but those people presumably still want to live in the South.
Logged
Death of a Salesman
Rookie
**
Posts: 238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2023, 10:41:58 AM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting.  

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.


I'm not totally sold on mass retirement in the North TBH.  Currently, the northernmost states that take in significant retiree migration are North Carolina and Tennessee.  Do we really expect MI and WI to have winters like present day NC and TN by 2100?  For Canadian border states to compete directly with Florida for retirees would probably require an utterly catastrophic scenario where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US in an average winter!

They don’t need to have anywhere close to snow-free winters, although I agree that Midwest winters aren’t necessarily getting milder in the short to medium term. Not dying of heatstroke in heatwaves during the rest of the year is more important.

True, but wouldn't the person who wants to retire on the beach in Florida's present day climate end up on the beach in NC where it hasn't snowed in 20 years in this scenario, not in Michigan or New England?  I think there's some real risk of Florida losing population in the long run, but those people presumably still want to live in the South.

IPCC projections for the climate in 2100 tend to be around a 5° F temperature increase and 3 feet of sea level rise. This is noticeable, but it will have a fairly modest effect.

Here's a list of Eastern seaboard cities ordered by temperature/latitude.
Daily Mean Temperature
Miami: 77.4°
Jacksonville: 69.3°
Charleston: 66.5°
Virginia Beach: 61.6°
D.C.: 59.3°
Philadelphia: 56.3°
New York: 55.8°
Boston: 51.9°
Portland: 47.5°
Halifax: 45.5°.

Climate change tends to increase temperatures more in cold areas than warm areas, so the temperature increase should be milder in warm areas than cool. A rough estimate of the climate circa 2100 would be:
Miami: 80.9°
Jacksonville: 73.4°
Charleston: 70.8°
Virginia Beach: 66.3°
D.C.: 64.2°
Philadelphia: 61.5°
New York: 61°
Boston: 57.4°
Portland: 53.4°
Halifax: 51.5°

Miami's climate shifts into the clearly tropical range and probably becomes too warm for most Americans. Northern Florida & Georgia continue to absorb many retirees, as do the Carolinas, and probably more go to the Virginia coast. The Jersey shore is increasingly muggy in summer, and people increasingly vacation in Maine, but the water is still cold off of Nova Scotia even in the height of summer.

With respect to sea level rise, it should not be a substantial threat to any city besides New Orleans. Building levees around low-lying areas will be worth it in cities where a single acre contains $10m of property.

Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,677
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2023, 05:19:09 PM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting.  

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.


I'm not totally sold on mass retirement in the North TBH.  Currently, the northernmost states that take in significant retiree migration are North Carolina and Tennessee.  Do we really expect MI and WI to have winters like present day NC and TN by 2100?  For Canadian border states to compete directly with Florida for retirees would probably require an utterly catastrophic scenario where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US in an average winter!

They don’t need to have anywhere close to snow-free winters, although I agree that Midwest winters aren’t necessarily getting milder in the short to medium term. Not dying of heatstroke in heatwaves during the rest of the year is more important.

True, but wouldn't the person who wants to retire on the beach in Florida's present day climate end up on the beach in NC where it hasn't snowed in 20 years in this scenario, not in Michigan or New England?  I think there's some real risk of Florida losing population in the long run, but those people presumably still want to live in the South.

IPCC projections for the climate in 2100 tend to be around a 5° F temperature increase and 3 feet of sea level rise. This is noticeable, but it will have a fairly modest effect.

Here's a list of Eastern seaboard cities ordered by temperature/latitude.
Daily Mean Temperature
Miami: 77.4°
Jacksonville: 69.3°
Charleston: 66.5°
Virginia Beach: 61.6°
D.C.: 59.3°
Philadelphia: 56.3°
New York: 55.8°
Boston: 51.9°
Portland: 47.5°
Halifax: 45.5°.

Climate change tends to increase temperatures more in cold areas than warm areas, so the temperature increase should be milder in warm areas than cool. A rough estimate of the climate circa 2100 would be:
Miami: 80.9°
Jacksonville: 73.4°
Charleston: 70.8°
Virginia Beach: 66.3°
D.C.: 64.2°
Philadelphia: 61.5°
New York: 61°
Boston: 57.4°
Portland: 53.4°
Halifax: 51.5°

Miami's climate shifts into the clearly tropical range and probably becomes too warm for most Americans. Northern Florida & Georgia continue to absorb many retirees, as do the Carolinas, and probably more go to the Virginia coast. The Jersey shore is increasingly muggy in summer, and people increasingly vacation in Maine, but the water is still cold off of Nova Scotia even in the height of summer.

With respect to sea level rise, it should not be a substantial threat to any city besides New Orleans. Building levees around low-lying areas will be worth it in cities where a single acre contains $10m of property.



I believe the "peak" projection is ~2.5C/5F above preindustrial temperatures (e.g. 1820's), not above today's temperatures?  This is significant because ~1C (~2F) of that is already baked into today's temperatures.  Are you adding to today's average temperatures or to 19th century temperatures?

Also, the peak estimate has recently been revised down as global emissions have thankfully flatlined since 2020.  Emissions also only increased 0.6% last year, so it's unlikely there will be any remaining pent up demand from COVID.  If carbon removal really takes off, we could reasonably peak lower at 1.5-2C midcentury and be back down to today's temperatures or lower circa 2100.  The most extreme warming scenarios assumed faster than linear growth in emission straight through to 2100. 

This is why I think the long term "lifestyle" risk is mostly confined to Florida.  However, the short term risk of any one city south of NYC getting destroyed by a hurricane should increase as well. 
Logged
支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)
khuzifenq
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,385
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2023, 01:42:53 PM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting.  

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.


I'm not totally sold on mass retirement in the North TBH.  Currently, the northernmost states that take in significant retiree migration are North Carolina and Tennessee.  Do we really expect MI and WI to have winters like present day NC and TN by 2100?  For Canadian border states to compete directly with Florida for retirees would probably require an utterly catastrophic scenario where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US in an average winter!

They don’t need to have anywhere close to snow-free winters, although I agree that Midwest winters aren’t necessarily getting milder in the short to medium term. Not dying of heatstroke in heatwaves during the rest of the year is more important.

True, but wouldn't the person who wants to retire on the beach in Florida's present day climate end up on the beach in NC where it hasn't snowed in 20 years in this scenario, not in Michigan or New England?  I think there's some real risk of Florida losing population in the long run, but those people presumably still want to live in the South.

IPCC projections for the climate in 2100 tend to be around a 5° F temperature increase and 3 feet of sea level rise. This is noticeable, but it will have a fairly modest effect.

Here's a list of Eastern seaboard cities ordered by temperature/latitude.
Daily Mean Temperature
Miami: 77.4°
Jacksonville: 69.3°
Charleston: 66.5°
Virginia Beach: 61.6°
D.C.: 59.3°
Philadelphia: 56.3°
New York: 55.8°
Boston: 51.9°
Portland: 47.5°
Halifax: 45.5°.

Climate change tends to increase temperatures more in cold areas than warm areas, so the temperature increase should be milder in warm areas than cool. A rough estimate of the climate circa 2100 would be:
Miami: 80.9°
Jacksonville: 73.4°
Charleston: 70.8°
Virginia Beach: 66.3°
D.C.: 64.2°
Philadelphia: 61.5°
New York: 61°
Boston: 57.4°
Portland: 53.4°
Halifax: 51.5°

Miami's climate shifts into the clearly tropical range and probably becomes too warm for most Americans. Northern Florida & Georgia continue to absorb many retirees, as do the Carolinas, and probably more go to the Virginia coast. The Jersey shore is increasingly muggy in summer, and people increasingly vacation in Maine, but the water is still cold off of Nova Scotia even in the height of summer.

With respect to sea level rise, it should not be a substantial threat to any city besides New Orleans. Building levees around low-lying areas will be worth it in cities where a single acre contains $10m of property.



The most probable scenario current is RCP6.0, which isn't as bad as the "2000s business-as-usual projection" (RCP8.5) but still amounts to 3-4 C (5-7 F) of increase in average global temperature by 2100, with no indication that there will be no further warming after then.

I think you and Skill and Chance are overly optimistic about our medium-term ability to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, and the severity of climate impacts we'll see at ___ warming level or ___ atmospheric CO2 level. But I agree with Skill and Chance in that future would-be Florida retirees would most likely end up in parts of the Upper South instead of New England or the Great Lakes region.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,677
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2023, 02:09:36 PM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting.  

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.


I'm not totally sold on mass retirement in the North TBH.  Currently, the northernmost states that take in significant retiree migration are North Carolina and Tennessee.  Do we really expect MI and WI to have winters like present day NC and TN by 2100?  For Canadian border states to compete directly with Florida for retirees would probably require an utterly catastrophic scenario where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US in an average winter!

They don’t need to have anywhere close to snow-free winters, although I agree that Midwest winters aren’t necessarily getting milder in the short to medium term. Not dying of heatstroke in heatwaves during the rest of the year is more important.

True, but wouldn't the person who wants to retire on the beach in Florida's present day climate end up on the beach in NC where it hasn't snowed in 20 years in this scenario, not in Michigan or New England?  I think there's some real risk of Florida losing population in the long run, but those people presumably still want to live in the South.

IPCC projections for the climate in 2100 tend to be around a 5° F temperature increase and 3 feet of sea level rise. This is noticeable, but it will have a fairly modest effect.

Here's a list of Eastern seaboard cities ordered by temperature/latitude.
Daily Mean Temperature
Miami: 77.4°
Jacksonville: 69.3°
Charleston: 66.5°
Virginia Beach: 61.6°
D.C.: 59.3°
Philadelphia: 56.3°
New York: 55.8°
Boston: 51.9°
Portland: 47.5°
Halifax: 45.5°.

Climate change tends to increase temperatures more in cold areas than warm areas, so the temperature increase should be milder in warm areas than cool. A rough estimate of the climate circa 2100 would be:
Miami: 80.9°
Jacksonville: 73.4°
Charleston: 70.8°
Virginia Beach: 66.3°
D.C.: 64.2°
Philadelphia: 61.5°
New York: 61°
Boston: 57.4°
Portland: 53.4°
Halifax: 51.5°

Miami's climate shifts into the clearly tropical range and probably becomes too warm for most Americans. Northern Florida & Georgia continue to absorb many retirees, as do the Carolinas, and probably more go to the Virginia coast. The Jersey shore is increasingly muggy in summer, and people increasingly vacation in Maine, but the water is still cold off of Nova Scotia even in the height of summer.

With respect to sea level rise, it should not be a substantial threat to any city besides New Orleans. Building levees around low-lying areas will be worth it in cities where a single acre contains $10m of property.



The most probable scenario current is RCP6.0, which isn't as bad as the "2000s business-as-usual projection" (RCP8.5) but still amounts to 3-4 C (5-7 F) of increase in average global temperature by 2100, with no indication that there will be no further warming after then.

I think you and Skill and Chance are overly optimistic about our medium-term ability to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, and the severity of climate impacts we'll see at ___ warming level or ___ atmospheric CO2 level. But I agree with Skill and Chance in that future would-be Florida retirees would most likely end up in parts of the Upper South instead of New England or the Great Lakes region.

My sense is that this is similar to COVID in spring 2020.   RCP8.5 is equivalent to the exponential COVID models that assumed no change in behavior whatsoever, i.e. that we would continue hugging each other at conferences even when >20% of the population became infected at the same time. 

People and institutions have clearly changed their behavior, more efficient clean energy tech has been developed, and recent progress on CO2 air capture really does look exponential (which it will need to be to end and reverse some of the warming in our lifetimes).  I do think the trend will ratchet down a couple more times, not to the scenarios where we stop emitting tomorrow, but I do expect global emissions (especially net of sequestration) to be clearly lower in the 2030's. 
Logged
Death of a Salesman
Rookie
**
Posts: 238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2023, 05:51:48 PM »

Why do these hypothetical future climate refugees only tend to come from red states?  are they being punished for their sins?  Cities like New York, Boston and LA are all coastal too, you dips[inks]ts

If you listen to the climate alarmists, the effects of climate change are being felt now and it still has not slowed growth in the mostly already hot/wet/stormy Sun Belt.  The idea that Florida is going to simply "go away" sometime in the next 50-100 years reads as terminally-online, liberal wishcasting.  

New York? Sure. Because it is built on an island. Maybe a lot of the city will be moved up the Hudson, though. Boston probably has a better chance of surviving because there is more room to build on higher ground. The climate will probably actually improve in those areas. I can see places like White Plains and Methuen being heavily gentrified and built up around the end of my life (2060-2080).  LA? It will probably do alright so long as they can get water. The climate probably won't get that much worse for them.


I'm not totally sold on mass retirement in the North TBH.  Currently, the northernmost states that take in significant retiree migration are North Carolina and Tennessee.  Do we really expect MI and WI to have winters like present day NC and TN by 2100?  For Canadian border states to compete directly with Florida for retirees would probably require an utterly catastrophic scenario where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US in an average winter!

They don’t need to have anywhere close to snow-free winters, although I agree that Midwest winters aren’t necessarily getting milder in the short to medium term. Not dying of heatstroke in heatwaves during the rest of the year is more important.

True, but wouldn't the person who wants to retire on the beach in Florida's present day climate end up on the beach in NC where it hasn't snowed in 20 years in this scenario, not in Michigan or New England?  I think there's some real risk of Florida losing population in the long run, but those people presumably still want to live in the South.

IPCC projections for the climate in 2100 tend to be around a 5° F temperature increase and 3 feet of sea level rise. This is noticeable, but it will have a fairly modest effect.

Here's a list of Eastern seaboard cities ordered by temperature/latitude.
Daily Mean Temperature
Miami: 77.4°
Jacksonville: 69.3°
Charleston: 66.5°
Virginia Beach: 61.6°
D.C.: 59.3°
Philadelphia: 56.3°
New York: 55.8°
Boston: 51.9°
Portland: 47.5°
Halifax: 45.5°.

Climate change tends to increase temperatures more in cold areas than warm areas, so the temperature increase should be milder in warm areas than cool. A rough estimate of the climate circa 2100 would be:
Miami: 80.9°
Jacksonville: 73.4°
Charleston: 70.8°
Virginia Beach: 66.3°
D.C.: 64.2°
Philadelphia: 61.5°
New York: 61°
Boston: 57.4°
Portland: 53.4°
Halifax: 51.5°

Miami's climate shifts into the clearly tropical range and probably becomes too warm for most Americans. Northern Florida & Georgia continue to absorb many retirees, as do the Carolinas, and probably more go to the Virginia coast. The Jersey shore is increasingly muggy in summer, and people increasingly vacation in Maine, but the water is still cold off of Nova Scotia even in the height of summer.

With respect to sea level rise, it should not be a substantial threat to any city besides New Orleans. Building levees around low-lying areas will be worth it in cities where a single acre contains $10m of property.



The most probable scenario current is RCP6.0, which isn't as bad as the "2000s business-as-usual projection" (RCP8.5) but still amounts to 3-4 C (5-7 F) of increase in average global temperature by 2100, with no indication that there will be no further warming after then.

I think you and Skill and Chance are overly optimistic about our medium-term ability to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, and the severity of climate impacts we'll see at ___ warming level or ___ atmospheric CO2 level. But I agree with Skill and Chance in that future would-be Florida retirees would most likely end up in parts of the Upper South instead of New England or the Great Lakes region.
Keep in mind, we've already had some global warming. RCP 6.0 projects about 2.5-3° C of warming from the 2000 temperatures by 2100. I assumed 5° F, which is squarely midrange for RCP 6.0.
Also, RCP 6.0 is probably more pessimistic than what will actually happen. I'd guess emissions peak between 2050-2070, so a more plausible result by the end of the century is 4° F.

In terms of sea level rise, I was too pessimistic. RCP 6.0 sea level projections by 2100 are about .6 meters, not the .9m I assumed. This is a more or less trivial amount of sea level increase, and should not pose a risk to any cities besides New Orleans (which is of course already below sea level).
Logged
Death of a Salesman
Rookie
**
Posts: 238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2023, 06:08:55 PM »

We can consult the 2013 IPCC report for simplicity's sake here.


Just to clarify this for everyone, these figures are for 2100 relative to the 1986-2005 norms.

The first number is temperature increase, the second is sea level increase.

RCP 2.6: 1° C, .45m
RCP 4.5: 1.9° C, .53m
RCP 6.0: 2.5° C, .55m
RCP 8.5: 4.2° C, .72m

RCP 8.5 and RCP 2.6 are both implausible. The likely outcome is probably somewhere between RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0.

As far as I can tell, since the reference period, the sea has risen by about .15m. The temperature has risen by about .3° C.

For 2100, relative to current sea level and temperature
RCP 4.5: 1.6° C, .38m
RCP 6.0: 2.2° C, .40m.

The impact of sea level increase on American society will be minimal. Many liberals have indulged in catastrophic and dishonest propaganda wherein topographic maps are altered to showcase the 70 meters of sea level increase that would result if all the icecaps were to melt. At current rates, this would take about 12,000 years. In actuality, it would never happen, because 670 ppm of carbon dioxide is not enough to melt the East Antarctic Icecap. It is possible that those levels, if maintained for the 3rd millennium, could eventually melt Greenland and West Antarctica and result in an Eemian ocean level (~7m). Making projections about this seems unwise, and it is likely that by this point we will either possess the capability to alter the climate as we like or have destroyed ourselves by some other means.

The temperature increases will likely be around those I wrote earlier in this thread. In equatorial climates, they will be unpleasant. In the northern areas of the world, they will make winters milder. They will not play an especially important role in American society.

Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,677
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2023, 10:49:08 PM »

We can consult the 2013 IPCC report for simplicity's sake here.


Just to clarify this for everyone, these figures are for 2100 relative to the 1986-2005 norms.

The first number is temperature increase, the second is sea level increase.

RCP 2.6: 1° C, .45m
RCP 4.5: 1.9° C, .53m
RCP 6.0: 2.5° C, .55m
RCP 8.5: 4.2° C, .72m

RCP 8.5 and RCP 2.6 are both implausible. The likely outcome is probably somewhere between RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0.

As far as I can tell, since the reference period, the sea has risen by about .15m. The temperature has risen by about .3° C.

For 2100, relative to current sea level and temperature
RCP 4.5: 1.6° C, .38m
RCP 6.0: 2.2° C, .40m.

The impact of sea level increase on American society will be minimal. Many liberals have indulged in catastrophic and dishonest propaganda wherein topographic maps are altered to showcase the 70 meters of sea level increase that would result if all the icecaps were to melt. At current rates, this would take about 12,000 years. In actuality, it would never happen, because 670 ppm of carbon dioxide is not enough to melt the East Antarctic Icecap. It is possible that those levels, if maintained for the 3rd millennium, could eventually melt Greenland and West Antarctica and result in an Eemian ocean level (~7m). Making projections about this seems unwise, and it is likely that by this point we will either possess the capability to alter the climate as we like or have destroyed ourselves by some other means.

The temperature increases will likely be around those I wrote earlier in this thread. In equatorial climates, they will be unpleasant. In the northern areas of the world, they will make winters milder. They will not play an especially important role in American society.



OK, then I was incorrect.  The ~2.5C/5F really is in addition to the 1st century of ~1C/2.5 F warming.  That's significant.

Currently, the "we expect it to snow every winter" line is between D.C. and Virginia Beach, and the  "heavy snow is plausible but rare" line is between Virginia Beach and Charleston, so RCP 6.0 would still basically end snow in the Upper South. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 12 queries.