Early Retirement Extreme Forums

The tool only considers sea levels. It then overlays that on a topographic map.

Freshwater levels are tougher to estimate. Human water usage? Especially upstream. Evaporation? Does precipitation fall as snow releasing water steadily or is the water dumped all at once at 1 degree above freezing thus resulting in a mud slide instead?

In the coast range where I live the water almost always falls as liquid. Through the dry summer we just hope enough fell over the winter, as there's no snow pack. I haven't seen any estimates yet on whether our precipitation quantity will go up, down, or what. Nothing that looked even close to reliable, anyway.

The areas I'm interested in are disparate. One is the area in Minnesota north of Lake Superior which generally has a fair bit of snow, wet springs, variable summers with occasional heavy bouts of rain, and often wet autumns. It's near a watershed that divides drainage southward into Lake Superior and northward to Hudson Bay, so there's not much "upstream" to consider. It's sparsely populated so minimal direct human consumption/diversion.

The other area is 70-100 miles west and slightly north of Chicago. Aside from a few rivers there are only a small number of man-made reservoirs (used for recreation). I didn't expect to see much there, but wondered if someone might think all the rivers would dry up or something.

Ah, the Boundary Waters Canoe area. I was supposed to go on a week or so long kayak trip there this fall but I haven't heard from my buddy who lives in the area and was going to plan it. I think I'm just going to have to start going backpacking, canoeing, and mountain bike touring by myself.

enigmaT120 wrote:Ah, the Boundary Waters Canoe area. I was supposed to go on a week or so long kayak trip there this fall but I haven't heard from my buddy who lives in the area and was going to plan it. I think I'm just going to have to start going backpacking, canoeing, and mountain bike touring by myself.

Yep, I can look out my other "front" window across the water at the border of the wilderness. I've heard kayaks are problematic for longer trips because they are difficult to portage, though I've heard "canaks" which are, as the name suggests, hybrids between traditional canoes and kayaks, are easier as a one-man carry over rough trails (but that's only hearsay). I haven't worked out exactly what my solo watercraft solution will be for the out years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... te-change/

And so it begins ...

Yep, follow the money and motives usually become clear.

Greenpeace stings academics for hire.
https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/ ... -for-hire/

The default is comparing RCP2.6 with RCP8.5 for the year 2100

When you talk about climate scenarios, always keep in mind the assumptions they were built upon. Most people have never read the economic assumptions behind IPCC emission trajectories (and therefore temperature trajectories).

For example, in the WORST climate scenario, you have to burn massive quantities of fossil fuels, and therefore the economy is thriving like he'll... see for yourself :
Asia GDP in 2100 : 71 900 $1990 per capita
Africa GDP in 2100 : 66 500 $1990 per capita.
OECD GDP in 2100 : 109 000 $1990 per capita
World total GDP in 2100 : 550 trillion $1990

As a reminder, today's US GDP is 29 000 $1990 per capita and world GDP is around 55 trillion $1990.

In other words the INPUT for the worst climate scenario is a world 10x richer with the average African twice richer than the current average American.

I guess you had never heard about those numbers, right ?
Well, they are (hidden) deep into the IPCC report, but can be easily found by anyone who takes the time to read the reports and their assumptions (which nobody does, actually most climatologists don't have a clue where the CO2 trajectories come from, as they only work on the link CO2 -> Climate (Palo climates, droughs, hurricanes, etc) and not Economy -> CO2, which is normal because it's not their job).

Florida is basically a lost cause

Actually, when you look at Florida, you realize that when you are rich, climate/weather doesn't matter much : Florida takes 1/3 of all hurricanes that hit the US but still retirees think it is the best place to retire and people go to Florida for its nice and pleasant weather.

If the tipping point is crossed, the long-run sea rise (e.g. year 2700) will be much much higher and put all of our coastal constructions under water.

We were 1.5 billion in 1900 and we are now 7 billions. So in one century we managed to build housing for 5.5 billion people and the entire economy that revolves around it. I think we shouldn't care too much about sea rising in seven centuries, whatever that rise could be. Don't worry, nobody will drown, they'l l just move, as they have always done (and sometimes they stayed and built on water, like in the Netherlands, and they are doing just fine).

If you want to act, act against poverty. You'll do actual good on a very real and current matter, and if climate change happens, people will be rich enough to not care too much.

JG- You are making a lot of assumptions and ignoring a lot of key aspects of climate change. One thing you are assuming is that growth will just continue as planned above 3% for the next 80 years (because we can only go up, right?). It won't matter how much money you have in Florida in 2100 if the whole state is underwater. What happens in 2100 when in the areas we grow food now find themselves in >10 year droughts? When there is limited fresh water available? People will (and have) die to extreme temperature differences as well as more extreme weather events. Climate change is not just a matter of a warmer planet, "so let's just crank that A/C!" It involves extreme instances of weather that dramatically affect every area of the world.

This whole argument sounds a whole lot like what Charles Eisenstein talks about. If the earth's resources are valued at $35 trillion and we can get $70 trillion by extracting and selling all of them then why wouldn't we do it?!?

You are making a lot of assumptions and ignoring a lot of key aspects of climate change. One thing you are assuming is that growth will just continue as planned above 3% for the next 80 years (because we can only go up, right?).

I think you are missing my point : I did not make this 3% assumption, the IPCC did.
If you don't think growth will be 3% / yr until 2100 that's fine with me but then you're ruling out all the high-end emission scenarios and all the high temperature rise trajectories of the IPCC report.

It won't matter how much money you have in Florida in 2100 if the whole state is underwater.

Can you point to any IPCC projection putting the entire Florida state underwater in 2100 ? For information, current sea level rise is about +3cm/decade and has been quite steady over the entire 20th century, so about +30cm by the end of the century if you assume the trend continues.

How much do you think sea level rise must accelerate in the coming decades to have the Florida state flooded like you are saying (mean elevation : 30 meters) ?

What happens in 2100 when in the areas we grow food now find themselves in >10 year droughts?

Are you saying that the entire planet will be too warm to grow any kind of food all year long ?
To my knowledge food is grown today in most parts of the world with very different climate configurations, and it works pretty well.

When there is limited fresh water available?

Fresh water is mainly an energy problem, and the water cycle won't disappear....
If you have energy, you have ways to get fresh water.
And by the way, where does your bottled water comes from ? The water source nearby ?
Oh and btw, it doesn't rain coca cola, there is no coca cola source, and still the entire world has access to it (even more than to plain fresh water)

Also, many studies talk about Africa becoming greener which is boosting rainfalls and reducing droughts (source1 source2 source3 source4). It doesn't seem to be a bad news, so maybe not all impacts wil be catastrophically bad ?

People will (and have) die to extreme temperature differences

To my knowledge people don't die when they move from Texas to Canada, and the temperature difference can be quite large.
Lots of people live today in what can be considered as very warm areas, and they don't be all dying from the heat... actually very often people from cold areas go there on holidays !

as well as more extreme weather events.

Well, when people retire from Colorado to Florida, they get many more hurricanes, and still they seem happy.
People retire to Thailand, Indonesia, etc., do you think their weather is 'stable' all year long ?

It involves extreme instances of weather that dramatically affect every area of the world.

So you're saying that everywhere in the world it will be worst than the the worst we can currently experience on the planet ?

I don't feel like repeating what's already stated in other links on the thread. Please see this (as listed in OP):http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report#section-1948 The other links are well worth reading too.

Please research heat related deaths in Chicago and the United Kingdom. The elderly, poor and youth die due to abnormal instances of heat.

Most of the produce grown in the US is in California. The problems they've had with their current drought are a very brief sign of things to come. You cannot grow food on a mass scale in many other areas of the US.

There are more extreme weather events, destroying more things and killing more people, regardless of whether the people are happy or not.

The water cycle will continue to be displaced (as it has). And yes, my water is from the river less than 1/2 mi away.

theanimal wrote: There are more extreme weather events, destroying more things and killing more people, regardless of whether the people are happy or not.

I'm sorry but have you ever looked at the data for weather/climate death related events ?

Here it is :



Keep also in mind that world population was multiplied by 4 between the beginning and the end of the graph, the decrease is just spectacular : do you have any idea why ?

And of course there are more things destroyed , just because there are more things, and more expensive things, to destroy !

When you look at death statistics, the deaths are almost exclusively in the poor countries.
When you look at $-impact statistics, they are in the rich countries (have a 4 bedroom mansion destroyed is costly).

Oh by the way, driving causes 1,2 million death/yr. Should we hold an international meeting to ban driving ?

@jg - Many of your points remind me of how Lomborg argues. They're "not even wrong" do further 'debating' will likely be an exercise in frustration. However, should you be interested in learning about the scientific foundations+predictions, this has all/mostly been covered in several threads before with multiple links.

Some starting points to look into:
1) Since the last AR, climate modelling has been based on potential future trajectories for CO2 concentrations believed to be representative of pathways that different socioeconomic responses would generate. These are parametrized time series and four standard ones have been chosen to compare/contrast and develop the statistics of the model runs so that all the dozens of groups don't use their own. These are called RCPs. Climate scientists (and scientists in general) are well aware of how this works. You aren't the possessor of some kind of special insight here.
2) The worst case (RCP8.5) is simply business as usual. It doesn't take much of an economic growth rate to quadruple a GDP number over 85 years. Under 2% will do it. IOW, the worst case is more conservative than the assumptions people usually make with their investment decisions.
3) People will indeed relocate, either in good order, or as refuges. However, having to abandon infrastructure (roads, cities, airports, sea ports, ...) even when done in good order is costly and it's money that can't be spent elsewhere. Hurricane Katrina or the Arab Spring fall out shows have happens when areas are left as refuges. People, such as retires, who only care about their next mortgage cycle will of course still go there. They don't care if their beach front condo will wash out 50 years from now.
4) Actual landmass lost matters less than the value of what is lost on that land. For example, losing Miami, FL to the sea will have a much bigger impact on the FL economy than losing square miles of undeveloped hinterland. Human populations tend to concentrate around coast lines. Not a few miles back from the sea. This is why people worry about sea level rise. It's not a question of moving the the beach cabins back. It's a question of moving cities back.
5) The rate of sea level rise is increasing, so you can't linearly extrapolate the past trend into a nonlinear or regime-switching future. Furthermore, climate change doesn't stop in the year 2100. The west Antarctic ice sheet crossed its tipping point a while ago and it will take hundreds of years to melt but it is now unstoppable and will ultimately add 3 meters to global sea levels regardless of what we do now.
6) The impact on food security is covered in other links/threads. The insurance industry is already setting aside reserves and they provide the most detailed socioeconomic/risk analysis. The current system is already at risk for price volatility (e.g. tortilla crisis). Crop productivity decreased 2%/decade over the 20th century (current genetics are maxed out). There is a strong fall off beyond a certain temperature that overrides increased availability of extra CO2. Future breakthroughs in genetic engineering will be required.
7) Just as we can't grow crops with Brawndo or Coca Cola because it's too expensive, growing crops with distilled water won't work. Look up how much of Saudi Arabia's energy goes to making drinking water alone. Don't worry about drinking water. Worry about crop water.
8) Not all of climate change is bad locally but the sum total is bad globally. For example, it will be possible to grow crops closer to the poles where it's too cold now. But this will be at the cost it no longer being possible closer to the subtropics where it's just right now. The subtropical desert bands will expand more. Additionally, it's not just about what we can grow in isolation. Agriculture relies on a supportive eco-system (insects, birds) .. and we can't pick up entire eco systems and bring those along like we can seeds and potted plants.
9) People obviously don't die from heat or cold when they move from Texas to Canada. They die when the local weather change to a regime that their current infrastructure in unprepared for. E.g. a heatwave w/o AC or an electrical infrastructure that can't handle the load.
10) Deaths from single climate events have been decreasing because economic response has become much better. E.g. during hunger disasters, food can now be brought in speedily from the outside. We are also much better at predicting tornadoes and hurricanes. This is why event deaths are declining. However, event deaths are a red herring and a drop in the water comparably speaking. The main toll is not from single events but from the increase in disease-vectors (malaria, dengue), heat waves (which is a regular/annual occurrence), and hunger (failed harvest). The 2012 DARA report puts the current impact at 400000 extra deaths/year in the ~1C world we currently have compared to the 0C reference.

However, to bring this back on topic. This thread is about REGIONAL impacts. It's certainly the case that some regions will be more impacted than others. A few might even see some improvements depending on what you're looking for. In particular, knowing what will happen and having the money to make the best decisions is what this thread is about.

If you want to discuss whether to focus on poverty or car crashes instead of climate change, please start another thread.

@jacob, I know you are trying to get back on topic, but do you have a link for #6 concerning the 2%/dec decline in crop productivity? My searches come up with productivity increases.

1&2) I know about RCP. The pathways are almost clones to AR4 emissions scenarios, except you don't have to justify where the CO2 comes from as the CO2 is the input. But it doesn't change the fact that in reality it has to come from fossil fuel burning i.e. economic activity. If you're fine with scenarios with 3%/yr growth until 2100 that's fine with me, i think it's just important to keep in mind when you think about regional impacts that the average African will be twice richer than the current American, and Americans will be twice richer than today. It's not a small change.

3&4&5) If you take satellite data (data), sea level rise acceleration is currently negative (slightly - but not positive). For Antarctica, i'm not sure where the 'unstoppable' comes from, to my knowledge it is still an area of active research and no conclusions has been drawn, not even wether it's gaining or loosing ice (most recent publication : +82Gt/yr). Time and data will tell (and most recent doesn't mean it's more correct, just that it's an area of research). So in terms of regional i don't see any urgency to move cities. If large sea level rise happens on timescale of a few centuries, cities will have moved by themeselves (construction rate is about 1%/yr in France, i dont know the rate in the USA [edit : i checked, it's roughly the same, 1.3 million for 133 millions so about 1%]). Don't worry for the airports : with 3% growth rate, you'd have to build others to satisfy the growth in air trafic anyway .

6&7) About insurance and climate change : let's ask Warren Buffett). But you can also look at the data mapped per country or region, and you'll see that economic loss grows slower than GDP (so we are more resilient). Swiss Re data explorer is a good starting point. Crop productivity decrease ?? Where ? Yield has increased since 1961 by 1.30% ± 0.32%/year in the developed world and 1.61% ± 0.17%/year in the developing world (source is FAO data per country and per crop)

8) Not true for Africa sahelian regions which are greening and therefore are getting less desertic. Rainfall trends are also heading the "good" way to have good hopes for those regions.

9) How long do you think it takes to change the infrastructure ? My answer is that it is extremely quick : weather stations have the previous heat waves in mind and are prone to alerting the population and people know what to do. But mostly : people who take care of the elderly (retirement houses, etc) know what to do. Because in a heat wave, the ones who die are the elderly : it's easy to see because the bump in death in summer corresponds to decrease in death over the next winter, see for example in France here :
year 2002 : 535 144 deaths (normal)
year 2003 : 552 339 deaths (heatwave)
year 2004 : 509 429 deaths (below normal)
year 2005 : 527 533 deaths (normal)
year 2006 : 516 416 deaths (below normal even though we had a second heatwave ! ... because the system was so robust and people cared so much for their elderly that less elderly died than during a normal year !)

10) Where did you find the 400 000 extra deaths/year ?
I would be VERY interested in the methodology that would be robust enough to attribute malaria deaths to climate change with any degree of confidence when :
(a) malaria mortality is steeply declining : between 2000 and 2013, the malaria mortality rate decreased by 47% worldwide.
In sub saharan africa, 173 million where afffected in 2000 vs 128 million in 2013 even though the population increased by 43% (! source).
(b) nobody can really attribute one special weather event or current change in pattern of local climate to climate change (see IPCC WG1 on regional modelisation and WG2 on impacts).
I'm sure you can play with numbers to find large figures, but are they any trustworthy ?

And by the way, +0.9°C is compared to pre-industrial period, which was "colder than normal". Anthropogenic warming takes off in the second part of the century so about 0.5-0.6°C of those 0.9°C, not all of it. How do you do for your malaria attribution in that case ?

@disparatum : check my link for #6 it's to the FAO all the data is there (and yes yields have increased, of course)

@johngalt--There was a huge thread about climate change to discuss the data, debate tactics, and other issues related to the validity of the science. You can find that thread here. This thread was intended to discuss specific regional impacts of climate change for long-term planning purposes and not to discuss climate change itself. A person's viewpoint towards climate science is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. Most people would at least consider the possible effects of climate change when developing their ERE plan.

Where am I discussing the "validity of the science" ??
(or where do you think I seem to be questionning it ?)

All my points are about impacts of climate change (current and future) : merely saying that high temperature trajectories means there has been a lot of co2 emissions i.e stroog economic growth, as shown in the IPCC own documents, and therefore when you think of regional impacts you have to realize it applies to our very rich children and grandchildren, otherwise you are not self-coherent.

All the sources I gave are official documents, research institute websites and scientific papers, not blogs or personal theories, and I don't see an of my answer contradicting IPCC WG1 or recent studies.

I'm just putting into perspective the drama about impacts (death from heat waves, flooding of entire states, epidemics, crop yield, etc...) with the actual data (giving all sources so anyone can check for himself). The drama is not the science.

Munich Re has published its yearly overview of the impact of natural catastrophes worldwide for 2015 (which will most likely be the warmest year on record) :

- 23 000 fatalities, 40% coming from the earthquake in Nepal in april (which was by far the deadliest event).
This is 58% lower than the 30yr average.

- 90 $bn dollars of damages, the most costly being the earthquake in Nepal, again.
The is 30% lower than the 30yr average

- For the first time, more than a thousand loss events were recorded in a single year. However, accord to Munich Re this is primarily due to improved communication of such events. In particularly benign years, a lot of minor events are recorded.

I understand JG's point as such:
Climate change will continue to happen, there is no reason to think any action will be taken against it.
But it's not more dramatic than many of the earlyer event induced by human growth, adjustment will happen, people will die, but it's not the first time in history.