Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the OP is referring to the chance that much of the country will be inhospitable, or at least unpleasant, if climate change continues to accelerate.
I think most projections show the Midwest (especially around the Great Lakes) and interior Northeast as areas that would remain the most hospitable. I think most areas in and around the Appalachian Mountains would be fine as well.
From what I've seen the PNW seems to be the sweet spot:
- Generally on higher ground
- Plenty of water + rain
- Already mild climate, so +/- a few degrees wouldn't make it inhospitable
There are probably other areas like the Great Lakes that will fare pretty well. The coastal NE (where I live), Florida & Gulf coast will probably fare the worst if any of the sea-level rise projections come to full fruition, although at least the wealthy NE cities will probably be able to build flood barriers of some sort. Just not economical for most places.
Climate's always changing, and people have always adapted. Beyond that, I won't comment on political and scientific opinions.
In the theoretical scenario that some people are worried about, I'd say the Great Lakes are a good place to start. Cooler to begin with, and no shortage of fresh water.
In the theoretical scenario that some people are worried about, I'd say the Great Lakes are a good place to start. Cooler to begin with, and no shortage of fresh water.
According to some "experts" we are in for another ice age. So if you want to move somewhere, moving south would be the choice to escape the coming cold weather up north.
One common assumption is that the Rust Belt will rise again -- but people have lots of choices The push factor may be there, but what's the pull factor?
Instead, I'd suspect that the same kinds of places that have been growing will continue to grow. Many of the fastest-growing cities in the southeast are mostly well inland (e.g., the I-85 corridor).
From what I've seen the PNW seems to be the sweet spot:
- Generally on higher ground
- Plenty of water + rain
- Already mild climate, so +/- a few degrees wouldn't make it inhospitable
There are probably other areas like the Great Lakes that will fare pretty well. The coastal NE (where I live), Florida & Gulf coast will probably fare the worst if any of the sea-level rise projections come to full fruition, although at least the wealthy NE cities will probably be able to build flood barriers of some sort. Just not economical for most places.
PNW is overdue a BIG ONE. By that I mean 9 Richter scale and tsunami. Recently saw a very worrying documentary about it. San Andreas pales in comparison. Now you can say, oh well, the same is said about Yellowstone Volcano, but the timeline is different. Yellowstone erupts planetdestroying every 400.000 years or what? The last Big One in PNW was like 300-400 years ago and is a new one is overdue as we speak. Seems worrying to me...
There's a whole lot of prehistoric Native American settlements that are now out in the ocean of Florida, that used to be the coast at one time.
Really, people don't have to move a couple of states over for climate change (it's a LOOONNGG time before Antarctica melts). There's just a couple of crappy spots that are in for problems, most of them being South Florida or the outer banks of the east coast. Moving from Palm Beach to Loxahatchee solves the next 250 years of climate change, 10 miles down the road is all.
Even places like Savannah are fine, 20 ft up in elevation, tucked out of the hurricane belt. People live in Cuba and they aren't falling over dead from heat. The south will get warmer, but not nearly as fast as the arctic is getting warmer, so that's not even a big deal.
The number 1 display of American stupidity is building millions of dollars of real estate on a coastal sandbar... Jesus called us all fools for a good reason "...shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
PNW is overdue a BIG ONE. By that I mean 9 Richter scale and tsunami. Recently saw a very worrying documentary about it. San Andreas pales in comparison. Now you can say, oh well, the same is said about Yellowstone Volcano, but the timeline is different. Yellowstone erupts planetdestroying every 400.000 years or what? The last Big One in PNW was like 300-400 years ago and is a new one is overdue as we speak. Seems worrying to me...
The interval in years for the BIG ONE of 9.0 or higher is between 210 and 780 years. So, overdue? It might be overdue and it might be 400 to 600 years from now. The Cascade Range Mountains/volcanos are also among the most dangerous volcanos in the US/world are nearby (and can blow up at any time -- there is usually some notice). If you have taken a basic geology course you learn about the connection between the subduction zones and the volcanoes. There's nowhere to run/hide from climate change (maybe parts of England or New Zealand?).
Estimated Year Interval
Jan 26, 1700 (NS) 780
780–1190 CE 210
690–730 CE 330
350–420 CE 910
660-440 BCE 400
980–890 BCE 250
1440–1340 BCE unknown
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
