How will climate migration effect states' voting habits?

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

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.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

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.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

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.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

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. 

Plausibly retirees towards the end of the century (who would I suppose be our children and grandchildren), will tend to stay in place to a greater degree as winters in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest become increasingly mild. This would result in a slowing of the trend of population shifts towards the South. The gap in sunniness should remain, however, so I doubt that this population shift entirely ceases. Active migration out of the South because the climate has become intolerable does not strike me as likely.

This also has to do with the similarly oppressive summer heat and humidity in the Midwest and Northeast, and fresh water availability limiting the carrying capacity in the West.