Places that will remain liveable if we get 3C temp rise ?

[Rich]

I see the popularity of the thread pertaining to places becoming less liveable and I'm curious as to people's thoughts as to where people might want to go.

I'm not so much asking for myself as much as others. I'm more or less resigned to a certain spiral that we've committed to as the planet tries to reach equilibrium to advancing GHG levels.

If you want a sea level rise assumption to work with, let's assume 1.5m by 2100 and 6m by 2200.

If you wanted to advise a young person where to set up shop and have a few generations of visibility and chance of a reasonable quality of life, where would you suggest they go?

[bluice]

Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada

Not necessarily in this order

[El Cid]

3 C temp rise if obviously not going to be evenly distibuted. The closer we go to the poles, the warmer it gets. Also, Arctic amplification and its effects mean that the Northern Hemisphere will warm more than the Southern in the next couple of decades (centuries?). Also, land warms more than the oceans.
So I assume it will be like this:
NH: 4 C, SH: 2 C
NH land: 4-5 C SH land: 2-3 C
NH tropical zone: 2 C, midlatitudes: 5 C, north: 6-10 C (much smaller area than  the tropics!)
Also, we need to consider, that winters are probably going to get warmer more, than summers, especially the more we go north.
So the final numbers for NH:
                     winter         summer
Tropics           +2              +2
Midlatitudes     +6             +4
North             +10            +5

Based on this, almost every place people currently live is still liveable. The only question is precipitation changes, that is very hard to forecast.

[Rich]

Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada

Not necessarily in this order

Arctic democracies. Seems reasonable.

If people have any regional preferences within Canada, I'd be interested in understanding where and why.

[b_lumenkraft]

I'm sure the people of Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Canada will be pleased to welcome millions and millions of refugees from all over the world. /s

[bbr2314]

Parts of the Americas (US, Canada, maybe a few countries in S America), Australia, Japan, China, Russia.

Food, oceans, armies, and strong centralized control will be the greatest assets over the next century. That means parts of Asia under strong totalitarian rule are best suited for survival, as well as the island nations, which includes Australia and much of the Americas. 

Europe will be destroyed as liberalism has already diluted most societies into oblivion. Besides what has already happened, what comes next will be tens of millions (if not hundreds) of refugees from Africa and the Middle East / SW Asia. The SJW reaction ("let them in") will doom these societies to complete destruction. You can already see it happening in places like Germany, where extant population native to the land is now obese and drunk on prosperity, dependent on what is essentially slave labor as they are no longer reproducing. They will be destroyed by their slaves, which is perhaps a just outcome. Maybe France and the UK stand a better chance of survival, but IDK.

Africa will be destroyed because it has too many people, can't feed itself, and will broil.

Non-Chinese and Russian parts of Asia will face a similar fate.

The notion that any democracies in their current sense will remain in 2100 is ludicrous. Any state without strong central power will be obliterated through inability to cope with accelerating and worsening change. This is why the USA, paradoxically, is actually on a path to survival (IMO).

Finally, I would not be surprised if we see the Greatest Powers encourage a nuclear exchange on the Indian subcontinent. This would actually be beneficial to most of the world. It would likely result in the deaths of about a billion people directly or indirectly initially, and another billion or two in the ensuing years due to food shortages (Africa and the rest of Asia). The smoke would stop warming temporarily, while the mass death would be the best benefit in the long term, as growth / emissions from many regions would be eliminated almost entirely (leaving the developed / centralized countries already on a path towards lower emissions the only ones remaining).

I'm sure the people of Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Canada will be pleased to welcome millions and millions of refugees from all over the world. /s

In Sweden and Norway they already have, which is why they are unlikely to survive the coming storm.

Iceland could survive if changes in the NATL don't result in its complete reglaciation. There's a whole lot of meltwater impending in its vicinity thanks to Greenland and I don't see how it will remain habitable if trends since 2012 continue.

[b_lumenkraft]

Europe will be destroyed as liberalism has already diluted most societies into oblivion.

Wow, i never noticed that. That's odd since i'm being here. Anyway, thanks a lot for the heads up Bbr.

Dude, seriously. Stop believing Breitbart. This shit is not good for you.

[bluice]

Contrary to common misperception liberal democracies are usually the most stable countries. Nordic countries are good examples of this. Functioning institutions and high level of trust creates a stable environment.

Totalitarian regimes may look stable until they don't. Lack of legitimacy and missing structure for organized power shift creates a built-in vulnerability in totalitarian nations. I doubt China will remain intact until the end of the century and Putin's dysfunctional mafia state is a disaster waiting to happen.

Climate-wise Russia has a lot to offer this century but the country is too disorganized and inefficient to prosper from it. Comparing Siberia with former Russian territory of Alaska is a case in point.

[Rich]

Geez...we jumped into the nasty politics very quickly.

How about we let people figure out for themselves what kind of regime they want to live in?

[El Cid]

How about we let people figure out for themselves what kind of regime they want to live in?

That's a funny question, since only a democracy lets you choose...

Authoritarian regimes don't allow you to "figure out what kind of regime you want".

[bbr2314]

Europe will be destroyed as liberalism has already diluted most societies into oblivion.

Wow, i never noticed that. That's odd since i'm being here. Anyway, thanks a lot for the heads up Bbr.

Dude, seriously. Stop believing Breitbart. This shit is not good for you.

I don't believe Breitbart. The USA is an exception as it is founded on multiculturalism and has always been based on immigrants. I think they are a strength for the US.

Europe, on the otherhand, is a different case. As I mentioned, I think France and the UK have done an OK job of integration. But Germany? I visited last year, I had the misfortune of traveling through Frankfurt and Stuttgart again last week. There are so many Muslims in full religious garb. I suppose there is a smattering of fit / attractive Germans but by and large the extant populous is even worse than the Muslims -- rotund, stupid, drunk on prosperity, oblivious to the fact that their society is slowly failing as it is being obliterated from within. The invaders have no use for German culture, heritage, or language, and there will be civil strife sooner or later as these conflicting ideologies come to a head. I don't see the fat, lazy, corpulent Germans winning that one.

Italy and Spain may survive, the EU certainly won't. These countries have done a better job of remaining not entirely reliant on immigrant labor for survival.

Ignoring history dooms us to repeat it. Rome fell because of a similar scenario. They became overly reliant on slave (barbarian) labor and failed to integrate them into society. Hardly surprising that when the invaders finally came in 410 AD, things fell apart very quickly thereafter.

Germans are literally Augustus Gloop personified as a nation. Fat, disgusting, useless. Don't conflate my critique of their culture as some kind of white supremacist take on how native Germans are superior (although I do think Islam is dangerous).



You think ^ will survive catastrophic climate change? LOL. OK.

[bbr2314]

Contrary to common misperception liberal democracies are usually the most stable countries. Nordic countries are good examples of this. Functioning institutions and high level of trust creates a stable environment.

Totalitarian regimes may look stable until they don't. Lack of legitimacy and missing structure for organized power shift creates a built-in vulnerability in totalitarian nations. I doubt China will remain intact until the end of the century and Putin's dysfunctional mafia state is a disaster waiting to happen.

Climate-wise Russia has a lot to offer this century but the country is too disorganized and inefficient to prosper from it. Comparing Siberia with former Russian territory of Alaska is a case in point.

What evidence do you have to suggest liberal democracies are stable? 100 years of history? That is a blip. The Chinese have been around for thousands of years. The USA has been around since 1776 (and it is a republic not a "liberal democracy"). "Liberal democracy" is fine in a golden age but when things turn to sh*t, as they are now, there won't be any liberal democracies left standing.

How many "liberal democracies" have endured more than a century since the fall of Rome? The answer is probably almost none. Maybe a few.

[bluice]

Cold places are obviously more desirable when the planet warms. The downside is amplification which causes bigger chages at higher latitudes.

One thing to consider is future geoengineering. I'm sure that at some point around mid-century when panic and desperation becomes more widespread there will be nations or groups of people who will try and use geoengineering to cool the climate. As geoengineering is likely to be more of a sledgehammer than a surgical instrument, there is a possibility of serious overshoot.

What happens to higher latitude locations when they switch from +5-6 C anomaly to pre-industrial temperatures in a very short period of time?  It can't be pretty.

[bluice]

Contrary to common misperception liberal democracies are usually the most stable countries. Nordic countries are good examples of this. Functioning institutions and high level of trust creates a stable environment.

Totalitarian regimes may look stable until they don't. Lack of legitimacy and missing structure for organized power shift creates a built-in vulnerability in totalitarian nations. I doubt China will remain intact until the end of the century and Putin's dysfunctional mafia state is a disaster waiting to happen.

Climate-wise Russia has a lot to offer this century but the country is too disorganized and inefficient to prosper from it. Comparing Siberia with former Russian territory of Alaska is a case in point.

What evidence do you have to suggest liberal democracies are stable? 100 years of history? That is a blip. The Chinese have been around for thousands of years. The USA has been around since 1776 (and it is a republic not a "liberal democracy"). "Liberal democracy" is fine in a golden age but when things turn to sh*t, as they are now, there won't be any liberal democracies left standing.

How many "liberal democracies" have endured more than a century since the fall of Rome? The answer is probably almost none. Maybe a few.

Yeah, whatever man. Have a great day.

[bbr2314]

Contrary to common misperception liberal democracies are usually the most stable countries. Nordic countries are good examples of this. Functioning institutions and high level of trust creates a stable environment.

Totalitarian regimes may look stable until they don't. Lack of legitimacy and missing structure for organized power shift creates a built-in vulnerability in totalitarian nations. I doubt China will remain intact until the end of the century and Putin's dysfunctional mafia state is a disaster waiting to happen.

Climate-wise Russia has a lot to offer this century but the country is too disorganized and inefficient to prosper from it. Comparing Siberia with former Russian territory of Alaska is a case in point.

What evidence do you have to suggest liberal democracies are stable? 100 years of history? That is a blip. The Chinese have been around for thousands of years. The USA has been around since 1776 (and it is a republic not a "liberal democracy"). "Liberal democracy" is fine in a golden age but when things turn to sh*t, as they are now, there won't be any liberal democracies left standing.

How many "liberal democracies" have endured more than a century since the fall of Rome? The answer is probably almost none. Maybe a few.

Yeah, whatever man. Have a great day.

So you have no evidence. Have a great day! 

[b_lumenkraft]

I don't believe Breitbart.

Well, you are believing (and spreading) Steve Bannon's lies though. So where do you get this stuff then?

The USA is an exception as it is founded on multiculturalism and has always been based on immigrants. I think they are a strength for the US.

OMG WHY IS THERE NO FACEPALM EMOJY??

What are you talking about? Where i live, and this is true for most of Europe, multiculturalism was a thing 50k years before the US was a thing. Heck, you could even argue it was a thing before Homo Sapiens existed!

[Pmt111500]

Geez...we jumped into the nasty politics very quickly.

How about we let people figure out for themselves what kind of regime they want to live in?

No, that's totally impossible. Neven is the emperor here and I guess this thread will be locked soonish. 3 degrees is not a stable place for the earth to stop historically so given the premise of the thread and the peaceful co-op world is currently showing on reducing the flood of ghgs., I propose the thread should be renamed to have 4,5°Kelvin on its topic. (Please say i wrote the temperature wrongly).

+1 for shutting this thread, even though it's on the personally mostly ignored section of the forum.

[gerontocrat]

Germans are literally Augustus Gloop personified as a nation. Fat, disgusting, useless.

Obesity in the world - https://obesity.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006032
2016 Data

Country  Global      % Of Population Obese
              Ranking   
USA          12          36.7%
UK            33          27.8%
Germany   78          22.3%

It is the nations of the South Pacific who are leading the way.
Come on USA - "America First, America First!"   

________________________________________
Another thread that somehow prods unpleasantness to emerge from the woodwork.

[Pmt111500]

OMG WHY IS THERE NO FACEPALM EMOJY??

lol, this escalated so quickly. This is likely why some of us were pretty much against inserting politics anywhere on the forum in the early days. This resulted in some scientists leaving the discussion and forum.

[Archimid]

Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada

Not necessarily in this order

 I think this is a huge mistake. The Arctic countries will experience the largest, fastest climate change in the world. As ASI melts into oblivion the northern countries will experience snowfall like it has never experienced during fall and heat waves that they have never experienced during summer. Arctic countries will also suffer the greatest flora and fauna changes, leading to fires and new diseases emerging.

I think the safest place is somewhere in the mid-low latitudes of the Southern hemisphere, probably America, not Africa or Asia. Somewhere away from the poles, somewhere of high elevation and good governance. Somewhere like Costa Rica might be good. Get yourself a high location that is immune to floods, build a strong house that is immune to Cat 5 hurricanes. Surround yourself with Solar panels, batteries, water sources and agriculture. Arm yourself.

And there, you have maximized your chances of survival on the coming climate apocalypse.

[Tony Mcleod]

Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada

Not necessarily in this order

 I think this is a huge mistake. The Arctic countries will experience the largest, fastest climate change in the world. As ASI melts into oblivion the northern countries will experience snowfall like it has never experienced during fall and heat waves that they have never experienced during summer. Arctic countries will also suffer the greatest flora and fauna changes, leading to fires and new diseases emerging.

I think the safest place is somewhere in the mid-low latitudes of the Southern hemisphere, probably America, not Africa or Asia. Somewhere away from the poles, somewhere of high elevation and good governance. Somewhere like Costa Rica might be good. Get yourself a high location that is immune to floods, build a strong house that is immune to Cat 5 hurricanes. Surround yourself with Solar panels, batteries, water sources and agriculture. Arm yourself.

And there, you have maximized your chances of survival on the coming climate apocalypse.

Then you want a moat and low population density, so Tasmania and New Zealand fit the bill nicely.

[Archimid]

My worry about very high southern latitudes is the same as very high northern latitudes. Antarctica might be slower to change than the Arctic, but when the changes get into gear I would want to be as far away from it as possible.

So for the near term ( a decade or two) somewhere far away from the poles, in the Southern hemisphere, with high elevation and energy water and food independence. Hopefully there are no huge changes in Antarctica during that time.

I think that the worst for the NH will be during the years immediately following the first BOE. Heatwaves, methane bursts, fires, disease and killer snow will make all the infrastructure of the NH obsolete. A few decades after the first BOE a new regularity should emerge that would allow new humans to adapt, build the correct infrastructure and settle. Only then the NH becomes the best option for escape.

[Pmt111500]

The basic assumption with this question is that everywhere nice has already people living in. And that they probably arm themselves before shit hits the fan. Tried to locate some place not too windy, a bit forested and with enough fresh water from southern Chile, then remembered Mapuche who might slit your throat if you get too much on their nerves. Not that the portuguese/native inhabitants are really peaceful either. Exiting.

[bbr2314]

I don't believe Breitbart.

Well, you are believing (and spreading) Steve Bannon's lies though. So where do you get this stuff then?

The USA is an exception as it is founded on multiculturalism and has always been based on immigrants. I think they are a strength for the US.

OMG WHY IS THERE NO FACEPALM EMOJY??

What are you talking about? Where i live, and this is true for most of Europe, multiculturalism was a thing 50k years before the US was a thing. Heck, you could even argue it was a thing before Homo Sapiens existed!

Yes. It worked out very well for the Neanderthals. Neanderthals either domesticated homo sapiens and then interbred with them (i.e. dissolved as a species with bits remaining intact), or interbred with homo sapiens and were slaughtered en-masse.

Either case is an apt analogy for Europe's current situation re: Africa and the Middle East, if the current course is allowed to continue.

Human history is exceedingly violent, bloody, and disenfranchising. To imagine that placing the greatest stress on the environment this planet has seen since approximately 63 million years ago would result in a peaceful situation, is simply, stupidity. Outright, abject, stupidity.

We see so many posters here talk about how disasters are worsening etc yet you also imagine that current systems, borne of unprecedented prosperity and stability, will be resilient amidst these catastrophic changes. LOL.

Also re: the obesity stats posted by Gerontocrat -- it is certainly true that the USA is full of fatties as well. However, I think it is quite different from Deutschland. In the US, the elites / upper middle class are almost all physically fit, many to the point of body dysmorphia. Poor people are obese. In Germany, it is the opposite -- the migrant classes are svelte, the ruling Germans look like Augustus Gloop.

An obese, sedentary proletariat is beneficial to maintaining control because what are they going to do in case of rebellion -- yell at their televisions? Any disruption to major supply chains in the US would result in the mass death of poor diabetics within a week or two.

Germany, on the other hand, is an opposite situation. Their elites are revoltingly repugnantly rotund. Their proles are fit. Do the math. In Stuttgart, 63% of children under 5 are foreign-born.

[oren]

In a situation where almost any strategy is hopeless, the best available strategy is to be away from high population densities, away from the coasts, and away from very warm places. The answer is probably remote Canada by some lake, but permafrost turning into swamps, forests turning into cinders, and winters turning crazy (and the militaristic southern neighbors) could be big problems. Or maybe New Zealand?
Keep away from overpopulated (and still growing fast) Africa, from overpopulated south/east Asia (though China is managed rather effectively), from deserts and near deserts. Keep away from huge cities and from places that are dependent on other places for basic needs or that overly depend on globalized technology. Keep away from places where the current trajectory is toward ignorance - they will be hell by mid-century. Keep away from Israel

Good luck finding anything and actually managing to migrate and settle there, while trying to live a decent life until the collapse. The better strategy is to be above the age of 50 and childless. I check on the first test but fail on the second.

[Neven]

I have removed a bunch of comments. I don't feel too well today (slight fever) and don't have time to make judgments of Solomon.

The topic is interesting in itself, but there's only so much that can be said about it. If people are looking for a place where they can continue their city life and all they have to do, is make money, no place on Earth looks good at +3 °C. It's going to involve some homesteading.

If I were young and had the guts to leave Europe, I'd go to southern Argentina. As it is, I will probably buy a large plot of land in Croatia with my wife, and maybe found a small community (where everybody has to do what I say, of course).

I'll leave the topic open, on the off-chance that something interesting gets written.

[Rich]

Thanks for deleting some of the comments on the thread. As the OP, I was regretting having started it.
If you decide to close it, I won't be upset.

I'm envisioning a quasi-apocalyptic setting in the OP with 3C increase in temp and 1.5m and 5.0 SLR at 2100 and 2200, respectively.

Living in extreme remoteness will have certain advantages, but would be quite primitive in terms of affording access to medical care and any kind of manufacturing.

The place that seems to open with more potential for maintaing a sizeable population is Canada. A place like Saskatchewan has some arable land and natural resources like oil which will come in handy. The distance from huge current population centers might make it more defendable if / when the shit hits the fan.

A bigger population would enable some very useful industry. Being able to service aircraft would be a big deal. Some hospitals and pharmaceutical industry would also be helpful as would some ability to make use of satellite technology.

I envision the S. Hemisphere habitability zones are going to be smaller pockets and only allow for more primitive society.

As many here indicate, the weather is going to be increasingly severe and hardening against that is going to be a big challenge.
.
I feel kinda bad to have started a discussion that became so contemptuous so quickly. That wasn't my intention. I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by 415 ppm CO2 and the stronghold that short-term profits have over current civilization. It feels like human nature and Mother Nature are on a collision course which is beyond my ability to influence. I just to be able to able to tell some people I care about how to prepare and I don't have good answers.

[SteveMDFP]

....I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by 415 ppm CO2 and the stronghold that short-term profits have over current civilization. It feels like human nature and Mother Nature are on a collision course which is beyond my ability to influence. I just to be able to able to tell some people I care about how to prepare and I don't have good answers.

A very reasonable concern.  My own take is that the safest place may be in one's home community, building a tight-knit, supportive community where one might strive to be useful and valued.  People watching out for each other can be invaluable.  Without that, I think even the most remote and armed homesteads would be overrun. 

Being a recent immigrant in a foreign community may create a challenge to being fully part of such a community.

I see the Puerto Rico hurricane disaster as illustrative.  Urban populations fared better than rural.

[zizek]

The USA is an exception as it is founded on multiculturalism and has always been based on immigrants. I think they are a strength for the US.

"Founded on multiculturalism" for bbr means genociding the indigenous population and enslaving colored folk. We can have many cultures, but those "other" cultures need to know their place.

bbr is a fascist asshole, but for some reason my posts are moderated and not his...

<snip, bbr has also been on and off moderation, it depends in a large part on how much you lash out at others; N.>

[Tor Bejnar]

At T+3  (3 degrees C warming), I expect a lot of political collapse (too many storms, too many mouths to feed, too much infrastructure loss), so I would recommend loved ones figure out where they won't be down-wind or down-stream from things like nuclear material storage and coal tailings ponds.  Part of me (quite the land lubber, so 'ignorance galore') might suggest a sailing yacht, but the seas might not be too hospitable.  I think I'd head for the mountains of Colorado; my dad's ashes are scattered there; not a bad place for my spirit to wander.

[wili]

You might want to avoid these sites, then, Tor: http://projects.wsj.com/waste-lands/state/CO/

But yeah, a lot of beautiful country up there.

[sidd]

Make sure that you have water in Colorado.

sidd

[Tony Mcleod]

My worry about very high southern latitudes is the same as very high northern latitudes.

Hobart and Christchurch are at about the same latitude as Rome.