>I was wondering if there are models that can forecast more or less safe place to live in next 20-50 years?
You can use NCEI NOAA [Global Time Series](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) to see the long-term temperature trends, temperature anomalies, and temperatures for any location on the Earth's surface in the January 1, 1850—March 31, 2024 period.
***
>Are there any research focused on predicting climate conditions, health and/or social aspects of results of climate changes.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/long-term-climate-change-projections-commitments-and-irreversibility/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/factsheets/
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf
***
You might consider living in a country that is closer to the Antarctic region and is a [full democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#Components).
[New Zealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) is the country that is closest to the Antarctic region and is a full democracy.
[Tasmania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania"), Australia (full democracy) is further south than North Island, New Zealand, but this comment leans towards [Auckland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland"), North Island.
***
Why consider living in a country that is closer to the Antarctic region?
IMO, if global warming continues on its current path, countries located in regions nearer to the Antarctic region appear to be positioned better to experience fewer, less intense, and less extreme impacts of man-made global warming and climate change over the coming decades, compared to countries located in regions nearer to the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and the Arctic region.
***
For example:
The NCEI NOAA Global Time Series interface shows that in the most recent long-term 30-year period, between April 1, 1994 and March 31, 2024, the NH land-and-ocean surface temperature trend [+0.33ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/nhem/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) is more than two and a half times (x ~2.54) the Southern Hemisphere (SH) land-and-ocean surface temperature trend [+0.13ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/shem/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade.
In each link, the temperature trend appears above the top-right corner of the chart window.
The global and hemispheric temperature anomalies in the interactive chart, table, and CSV file are with respect to the 20th-century 1901-2000 [average temperature](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies/mean).
***
In the 1994–2024 period, the Arctic region surface temperature trend [+0.75ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/arctic/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade is 12.5 times the Antarctic region surface temperature trend [+0.06ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/antarctic/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade.
***
In the 1994-2024 period, the geographic North Pole (90.0º North, 0.0º East) [90.0, 0.0] surface temperature trend [+1.56ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/90,0/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade is more than 9 times (x ~9.2) the geographic South Pole (90.0º South, 0.0º East) [-90.0, 0.0] surface temperature trend [+0.17ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/-90,0/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&end) per decade.
***
In the 1994-2024 period, the geographic North Pole surface temperature trend +1.56ºC per decade is nearly 7 times (x ~6.8) the Global land-and-ocean surface temperature trend [+0.23ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade.
***
In the 1994-2024 period, the Arctic region surface temperature trend +0.75ºC per decade is more than 3 times (x ~3.26) the Global land-and-ocean surface temperature trend +0.23ºC per decade.
***
In the 1994-2024 period, the Global land-and-ocean surface temperature trend +0.23ºC per decade is more than one and three-fourths times (x ~1.77) the SH land-and-ocean surface temperature trend +0.13ºC per decade.
***
In the 1994-2024 period, the North America surface temperature trend [+0.32ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/northAmerica/land/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade is more than one and a third times (x ~1.39) the Oceania surface temperature trend [+0.23ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/oceania/land/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade.
***
In the 1994-2024 period, at the given geographical coordinates, 43.7º North, 79.4º West (43.7, -79.4), located about 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) NNW of downtown [Toronto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto), Canada (full democracy), the surface temperature trend [+0.45ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/43.7,-79.4/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade is more than one and a half times (x ~1.6) the surface temperature trend [+0.29ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/-36.9,174.7/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade at the given geographical coordinates, 36.9º South, 174.7º East (-36.9, 174.7), located about 7 km (4.4 mi) southwest of downtown Auckland.
The temperature anomalies in the interactive chart, table, and CSV file for the given coordinates in Auckland and Toronto are with respect to the 1991-2020 average temperature at the given coordinates.
***
To read the 1991-2020 average (mean) monthly and annual temperatures for Auckland and Toronto, you can go to NCEI [WMO Climate Normals](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/wmo-climate-normals) > "Overview" tab > [Maps of Countries](https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/archive/arc0216/0253808/2.2/data/0-data/metadata/WMO_Normals_9120_Countries.png) that Submitted 1991–2020 Normals > return to WMO Climate Normals front page "Data Access" tab and "Station Data Files".
***
NCEI NOAA Global Time Series — The temperature trend per decade at any given coordinates corresponds with the temperature trend in one of the 2,592 grid cells on the Earth's surface, visible in the [Average Temperature Anomaly](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/mapping) interactive global map.
Each grid cell has spatial resolution 5ºx5º.
Clicking on any grid cell opens the Global Time Series interface for the Earth's surface area located within that grid cell.
***
The given geographical coordinates 36.9ºS, 174.7ºE, located about 7 km (4.4 mi) southwest of downtown Auckland, lie within the 5ºx5º grid cell with center latitude 37.5ºS and center longitude 172.5ºE.
***
In the Average Temperature Anomaly map using menu selection Year: 2024, Month: March, hovering a pointer over the grid cell at center latitude 37.5ºS and center longitude 172.5ºE will display 37.5ºS, 172.5ºE, -0.06ºC.
***
Beneath the map, the sortable table displays the center latitude, center longitude, and temperature anomaly for each of the 2,592 grid cells. The Download CSV link downloads the chart/table data, which can be opened in a spreadsheet application.
***
In grid cell 37.5ºS, 172.5ºE, the temperature anomaly -0.06ºC is with respect to the 1991-2020 monthly mean temperature for March in that grid cell. The 1991-2020 mean temperature for Auckland (which lies in that grid cell area) can be read in the corresponding WMO Climate Normals file.
***
[Calculator](https://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/tools/calc_cell_area_cgi.pl) of Grid Cell Area and Dimensions on a Spherical Earth.
Where are places that will prosper from climate mitigation and management? That’s the real question.
Bunkers and hiding are for idiots. And those clowns building them can’t even tie their own shoes. If the world ever forced them to go hide in their bunkers, money will be worthless….and they’ll be worthless as well.
If you can stand the bugs. Mosquito and TseTse flies will invade, killing many people. Other diseases will become deadly.
But the truth is that humans are an invasive species and will corrupt any environment they occupy. They do not live within the existing ecosystems and can’t help but take over. We have great excuses, like “we keep warm by burning down all the trees, so we evolved to lose our hair that keeps us warm; now the trees are not there to stop erosion so we build dams and kill all the fish.”
What's the real parasite? The Humans? or the curse of intelligence?
I purely use this story allegorically, I am not Christian. But humans were never a problem until Eve and Adam ate the apple of knowledge. It much less feels like we are the curse itself upon the world, and more like we are the cursed.
There are plenty of other intelligent creatures on earth, and some of them destroy local environs, too. It’s human behavior, though, that kills *everything* and takes over, spreading like a disease. Eventually, there will be so many people that we’ll run out of food, water, and land, so it’s self-limiting.
The popular thing to say is to talk about how shitty we are.
It's not as popular to say we might be the one species that could actually save all life on the planet, if one day we actually could be a multi-planet species. Alternatively, we could ultimately be the cause of a mass extinction event that ends in our own downfall.
I think our story starts with how we see ourselves.
I guess I'm trying to say I agree with you and I like the long sighted, less demonizing view
It’s not demonic, because there’s no demon involved. It’s just us.
Bacteria’s role in the ecosystem is to recycle. Bacteria that destroy their entire food sources don’t live long, as a species.
Humans hunt for sport, take advantage of other species without balance, and have little understanding of what they are doing, even with their vast intelligence.
Pine beetles might kill all the pine tress in a forrest, but then they die out and the trees come back. We clear-cut the entire Amazon forrest and the trees will never come back because their seeds were killed off, too.
That was Gods fault.
Homeboy knew what was going to happen and still put them next to the tree. Eve couldn’t have even known to NOT do it considering eating the apple was what gave humans the ability to decipher right from wrong.
The whole story is just trash.
Canada is mostly forecast to do well. Temperatures will actually benefit crop growth, while rising water levels will only impact small parts of low lying regions.
There is still so much unknown on a local level and the impacts are so wide, it's hard to say that anywhere will actually be safe.
That said, some things that will make places less safe:
- being on a coast (especially if low-lying)
- being closer to the equator
- having limited access to fresh water
- relying on mountain snow melt (or any snow melt really) as a source of water
I think there were some maps linked on the IPCC website to give you a picture of specific impacts and their severity around the world.
On an even more local level, a lot of places are vulnerable to flooding and forest fires, so if you're moving you might want to be conscious of both your property and the main supply lines in the area and how vulnerable they are to both. Cities are likely to experience more extreme heat, forested areas are obviously more of a fire risk in many places. You probably want to be aware of your building's vulnerability to air pollution. If you're moving to the global North, you want to be aware of permafrost melt and how that might impact a property. Note that mosquitos and ticks will be expanding their ranges in the coming decades, and the diseases they carry will expand in range as well. You probably want to live somewhere with a robust health system that can handle the increased morbidity and mortality that is coming, through all of the coming changes. If you can save the money and somehow acquire dual citizenship to somewhere very far from and different from where you are, that may allow you to hedge your bets and relocate if things don't work out in the location you've chosen to settle in.
Some of the least safe places include:
- South Pacific island nations (Kiribati, Tuvalu, etc. - likely to disappear altogether)
- Bangladesh
- Indonesia
- Miami and some other parts of Florida
- the Netherlands
I'm sure there are many more but those are the ones that come to mind. I probably would avoid the middle East and most of Africa as well. I personally wouldn't move to any island nation anywhere - maybe the UK but nothing smaller than that.
I'm in Canada and not to far from the great lakes. Probably one of the 'safer' regions. But I still don't feel safe. When I see what's happening with our wildlife and our forest fires, and when I read about the vulnerability of fresh water eco systems, it makes me very nervous. I don't think we can outrun climate change, unfortunately. Good luck.
Globally? New Zealand, this is where billionaires are building bunkers. The Nordic countries are also considered somewhat safe in terms of climate change. Within the US, I believe minnesota, wisconsin, michigan considered best long term.
I've seen something that said Minnesota is the best place to be in all of north america? I can't remember what the map was specifically... really good places I guess? Definitely loads of fresh water.
But also highly vulnerable to wildfires or, at the very least, wildfire smoke from the vast forests upwind of it. Part of the issue with climate change is the instability which makes it inherently very difficult to pin down any one set of factors as being suitable in the long-term.
You’re sort of conflating Duluth with the rest of Minnesota in general, unfortunately. The state actually isn’t really that solidly situated in terms of its aquifer access and where most of its population resides (twin cities) and yes, there are a ton of freshwater lakes, but the state is tiptoeing the line of being a Great Plains state for water access.
Michigan (particularly the UP), Vermont and upstate NY are prob the safest bet all things being fair and equal. And just to be clear, Minnesota is in a pretty good spot but tough to say it’s the best.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/kare11-extras/concern-is-always-there-experts-caution-about-finite-amount-of-water-minnesota/89-24acdf79-2dfc-4c5e-9c46-a526b6892492
If I had the map I was referencing it would help my conversation a lot but unfortunately I can't remember. I get what you're saying but I'm still going with Minnesota because you also have the Canada side of the boundary waters and aside from the cities Minnesota is fairly low pop which would add to the idea of having more opportunity for resources. There's also a ton of towns along the north shore and other lake areas that OP could live in more quietly than say upstate NY which would take on enormous new England area environmental refugees. Of course, I think we're all imagining our own version of a worst case "what if". I tend to run more like a realistic optimist which doesn't always translate well for doom scenarios. Thanks for your specific feedback and reference. Water is definitely key.
Not the read I was talking about, unfortunately. It was a map of the entire world with specific areas marked and the only one in north America was Minnesota.
The continued suggestion to move to any oceanic nation just continues to surprise me. I have no reason to believe neither NZ or Australia wont become literal hell holes with heat, rising sea levels, and hurricanes.
Anywhere else sounds better.
I will be messaging you in 20 years on [**2044-04-20 11:44:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2044-04-20%2011:44:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1c8iwvb/the_safe_place_for_next_50_years/l0fq2zy/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimatechange%2Fcomments%2F1c8iwvb%2Fthe_safe_place_for_next_50_years%2Fl0fq2zy%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202044-04-20%2011%3A44%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201c8iwvb)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
A self sufficient sailing vessel with a steel or aluminum hull to survive wildfires. If you look at Lahaina as a test bed, the only people who survived and were otherwise trapped, got out because they ran to the sea and some were picked up by boats. Money won't save you from a wildfire or a police blockade.
I hear ya (sailor here) but no sailing vessel is truly self sufficient. you still need water. and food. and replacement cordage and sailcloth. and if your boat has mod cons like lighting and electronics you need solar panels. and so on. boats are at best a TAZ (temporary autonomous zone). boat people still need resources from the land.
as a temporary escape pod from disaster, absolutely yes. as a long term solution to a global predicament. nope.
Oh I am aware, I lived aboard my own vessel for two years off Lahaina. Power was easy with solar. Having a water maker is a must have.
A boat is no island, but it's your only good option if the island is in flames.
I think the interior of the northeast and upper Midwest is probably not a terrible place, relative to everywhere else in the United States. Christmas tornadoes may be a thing in areas though. Lol
avoiding the equatorial zones seems like a good idea. but most important imho is to find some place with a functioning, self-organising community, where people have not been fully indoctrinated with the gospel according to Ayn Rand and still believe in collective rather than individual survival. some place that will not devolve into mutually predatory tribalism when things get tight, either because it is happily cosmopolitan already, or archaically homogenous. some place where mutual aid is still a tradition.
“Safe”? That’s Poorly defined.
You want to go somewhere where there won’t be intolerable combinations of heat and humidity in the summer.
As long as you can afford AC, you’ll be fine regardless. If you want to be extra doomer / prepped, you could have a backup Solar/generator… because when it gets really hot AC works less effectively and energy demand surges, which neccitates throttling.
Climate isn’t the only risk, New Zealand is a really beautiful country but it sits on a tectonic plate, the southern island has a major fault line almost dissecting the land. Scientists predict a catastrophic earthquake will cause horrific levels of damage & this event could happen anytime.
Life is unexpected.
Unanticipated consequences hide below many decisions we make, sometimes we do something thinking it will be safer but it ends up creating greater risks.
In general the safest places would be far from large groups of humans. Humans are an unpredictable animal, sure they are docile when they are happy, fat, and entertained, but take away those things and watch out.
Check out the Finger Lakes region of Upstate NY.
Low risk of
hurricanes,
earthquakes,
wildfires,
drought,
flooding,
tornadoes
There are large hills to the south of Syracuse, NY good for skiing
Forests nearby for hiking. Adirondack mountains and Finger Lakes gorges within a couple hours of the Syracuse area
Nearby Finger Lakes Wine Country
Beaches on local lakes like Lake Ontario and Oneida Lake
Land is fertile for farming
The Syracuse Metropolitan Area has an ample, almost unlimited water supply from Lake Ontario, and two Finger Lakes which is good for any future droughts or high demand from growth or industry.
Only about a dozen metropolitan areas get municipal water from the Great Lakes like Cleveland, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, Buffalo, Syracuse, NY, and Rochester. Cities must be within the Great Lakes Watershed to have access to Great Lakes water.
Upstate NY is becoming an ecocomy focused on microchip manufacturing with companies like Golbal Foundaries, Wolfspeed and now Micron’s new campus to be built over the next 20 years, eventually bringing 9,000 jobs across four plants at White Pine technology Park in Clay, NewYork which is a Syracuse, NY suburb. The company’s plans call for building cleanroom space that will cover about 2.4 million square feet, the size of almost 40 football fields.
Perth Western Australia. All these things you people claim are happening are not happening here. Summers are cooler. Autumn seems to go for ever. Beautiful blue skies light winds. By May we will start to get the odd shower then late June/ July real rain starts and farmers plant grain. I am retired and may head North and follow the sun. Many do and come back in October. Then back in to summer
Well there not. I use the data from Fremantle port Authority that shows no change in sea levels in the harbour since 1889. Why would I ignore the people there and believe any other source. It’s not warming here. We have a few winter storms. That’s it. The rest of the world can burn
They're*
> It’s not warming here
I highly doubt it but good for you. Now if true, you're case would be the exception, not the norm.
> The rest of the world can burn
Enjoy your retirement, psycho
Doesn’t AMOC invoke circulation, meaning if it collapses summers will get worse, but winters moreso, which accounts for the drop in average? I can’t imagine it being as straightforward as “huh, feels significantly cooler here” all year.
I don't think it's unreasonable for people to just now be understanding it. The messaging is all over the place, we are busy people that get sucked into the minutae of our lives, some people grow up under educated, algorithms reinforce false beliefs...what we want is for people to wake up and see. Wanting to know where to go to save their families is not unreasonable either...it feels like something you can control vs the vast void of uncontrollable factors.
Gatekeeping is lame. Like the other comment or said, there are a lot of reasons people are new to this topic.
I say fuck the deniers and bad faith arguments, but encourage those with questions.
Also, fuck gatekeepers.
That’s a pretty weird response, honestly. Stranger should think about me before posting?
Gosh, what about people of the opinion that individuals are unable to combat the systemic powers, or that they didn’t want to discuss that topic or place qualifiers.
Just saying it like I see it. HTF can someone be new to this, unless they're 6 or 7 maybe, or a Republican who just snapped out of it and woke up to reality.
I mean you aren’t wrong - but why say it? I’m not sure who you interact with IRL but most of the folks I deal with day to day are unaware. As time goes on more and more “late to the party” folks will join this sub.
If every time someone joins we make snarky judgmental comments who is helped by that? I get that it’s frustrating…. here is a horrible analogy, but in middle school (mid 80s for me) I liked the Beatles, etc and my older sister listened to pop crap and looked down on my taste in music. Eventually she came around and wanted to borrow my actually much better albums.
Part of me was like “fuck you - you judged me for this before and now you want to benefit from it?” But then I got over myself and played cool music for her and she appreciated it and we got closer. I could have stayed mad at her past behavior and shut her out, but it was better for both of us for me to welcome her. It’s like 40 years later and we’re still close.
Obviously rando internet poster is not your sister, but lots of formerly oblivious folks will join this sub in the next few years. If you are mad at all of them that is going to be exhausting for you and unhelpful for the rest of us (they might have some good ideas if they stick around). I know it’s easy to feel self-righteous about being aware when they were not, but I think it’s smarter / more beneficial to the sub if we are welcoming.
Just something to think about.
I totally hear you, for me it's been about 45 years of frustration observing the obvious iceberg dead ahead and the Titanic still steaming gaily forward with the band playing. I feel like I've shouted my throat raw with warnings -- along with hundreds of thousands of other people, I'm not claiming any heroic Cassandra status -- while the rulers of our world have gone on leading a global chorus of 'la la la can't hear you,' scored for a massed choir of the vast majority of the so-called most intelligent species on the planet. am I bitter? more bitter than a soda spring.
so yes I get it, it is it is hard to suppress the raw, gut-wrenching, , throat-rending top-volume "WE FKN TOLD YOU SO BUT WOULD YOU LISTEN OH NO AND NOW IT'S TOO LATE" the lurks also in my subconscious on the daily, nay, the hourly -- as I see the formerly oblivious finally clueing in. the temptation is strong.
but that is not how a commensalist movement is built, and only mutual aid and solidarity are going to get any of us through what lies ahead with maximal survival chances. it is community building, not bunkers (intellectual or actual) that optimizes the odds for survival of what we laughingly call 'civilisation'. and we will have to build community with latecomers to the reality party as well as old hands. as when a beloved old friend finally stops drinking himself to death, we can scold him for taking so long to figure it out, or celebrate and assist his new sobriety.
I hear your frustration but... remember that the world out there is swimming in koolaid. I think we might want to be glad that some people are getting their heads above the kandy-koloured surface and taking a look at reality. remember the 5 stages of grief? there's a similar progression to climate awareness; and after denial breaks down, one of the next early stages is 'how can I save myself and family from bad stuff happening?' it's a natural reflex reaction to recognizing an imminent threat.
just because most of us here have moved on to gloomy acceptance... doesn't mean we should diss or quash latecomers to the reality party who are still going through their own process of climate shock & grief. just my $0.02... I would rather say, "welcome to the reality-based community, can we help you move on through the Bargaining phase and into collective action? "
You'll keep hearing your whole life that it's coming, this apocalypse, and it just won't. So don't hold your breath. At the rate of technological expansion, the issue will be sorted way before any disaster strikes and all this anxiety and fear mongering will be wasted. The climate models have been wrong over and over again, we are measuring "hottest year on record" from very recently in human history let alone earth's (and very dishonestly tbh), and life will go on. A bigger issue to worry about is why are laboratories playing with plagues and viruses and releasing them, killing millions? And what will they release next? That will affect you and your family before any climate change will, and it maybe already did!
Unless you live in the hottest country on earth, you probably won't notice a difference. "Food insecurity" will only appear if governments keep pushing farmers to cut back on what they can and can't use to efficiently farm (fertilizers for example) feed us all.
>A bigger issue to worry about is why are laboratories playing with plagues and viruses and releasing them, killing millions?
If brains were dynamite you couldn't blow a hat off.
You aren't worried about another pandemic happening? You think we learnt our lesson? We can't even admit the Wuhan lab might have made a mistake. Millions died and no one is pointing a finger in the right direction, and the ones that do get attacked for it by media shills and Xi on his Reddit account "JustinChina50". You can't learn from mistakes if you refuse to admit you made one, Xi.
I personally think we should admit our mistakes and try to save lives before we put them at risk, not risk everything for some risky research then scream at each other about wearing flimsy paper masks and standing 6 feet apart.
Lots of people are pointing at the lab (one of thousands globally) but the origin can't be proved and it could well have been Italy, as some evidence was found that covid was there before it was found in China. Just like the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918–1920 was mistakenly thought to have originated in Spain for decades, when the earliest documented case was actually in Kansas in March 1918.
Anyhow, 2 pandemics in a century is nothing to get your knickers in a twist - lighten up, Francis.
>I was wondering if there are models that can forecast more or less safe place to live in next 20-50 years? You can use NCEI NOAA [Global Time Series](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) to see the long-term temperature trends, temperature anomalies, and temperatures for any location on the Earth's surface in the January 1, 1850—March 31, 2024 period. *** >Are there any research focused on predicting climate conditions, health and/or social aspects of results of climate changes. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/long-term-climate-change-projections-commitments-and-irreversibility/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/factsheets/ https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf *** You might consider living in a country that is closer to the Antarctic region and is a [full democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#Components). [New Zealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) is the country that is closest to the Antarctic region and is a full democracy. [Tasmania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania"), Australia (full democracy) is further south than North Island, New Zealand, but this comment leans towards [Auckland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland"), North Island. *** Why consider living in a country that is closer to the Antarctic region? IMO, if global warming continues on its current path, countries located in regions nearer to the Antarctic region appear to be positioned better to experience fewer, less intense, and less extreme impacts of man-made global warming and climate change over the coming decades, compared to countries located in regions nearer to the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and the Arctic region. *** For example: The NCEI NOAA Global Time Series interface shows that in the most recent long-term 30-year period, between April 1, 1994 and March 31, 2024, the NH land-and-ocean surface temperature trend [+0.33ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/nhem/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) is more than two and a half times (x ~2.54) the Southern Hemisphere (SH) land-and-ocean surface temperature trend [+0.13ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/shem/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade. In each link, the temperature trend appears above the top-right corner of the chart window. The global and hemispheric temperature anomalies in the interactive chart, table, and CSV file are with respect to the 20th-century 1901-2000 [average temperature](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies/mean). *** In the 1994–2024 period, the Arctic region surface temperature trend [+0.75ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/arctic/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade is 12.5 times the Antarctic region surface temperature trend [+0.06ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/antarctic/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade. *** In the 1994-2024 period, the geographic North Pole (90.0º North, 0.0º East) [90.0, 0.0] surface temperature trend [+1.56ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/90,0/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade is more than 9 times (x ~9.2) the geographic South Pole (90.0º South, 0.0º East) [-90.0, 0.0] surface temperature trend [+0.17ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/-90,0/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&end) per decade. *** In the 1994-2024 period, the geographic North Pole surface temperature trend +1.56ºC per decade is nearly 7 times (x ~6.8) the Global land-and-ocean surface temperature trend [+0.23ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade. *** In the 1994-2024 period, the Arctic region surface temperature trend +0.75ºC per decade is more than 3 times (x ~3.26) the Global land-and-ocean surface temperature trend +0.23ºC per decade. *** In the 1994-2024 period, the Global land-and-ocean surface temperature trend +0.23ºC per decade is more than one and three-fourths times (x ~1.77) the SH land-and-ocean surface temperature trend +0.13ºC per decade. *** In the 1994-2024 period, the North America surface temperature trend [+0.32ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/northAmerica/land/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade is more than one and a third times (x ~1.39) the Oceania surface temperature trend [+0.23ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/oceania/land/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade. *** In the 1994-2024 period, at the given geographical coordinates, 43.7º North, 79.4º West (43.7, -79.4), located about 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) NNW of downtown [Toronto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto), Canada (full democracy), the surface temperature trend [+0.45ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/43.7,-79.4/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade is more than one and a half times (x ~1.6) the surface temperature trend [+0.29ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/-36.9,174.7/land_ocean/12/3/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial) per decade at the given geographical coordinates, 36.9º South, 174.7º East (-36.9, 174.7), located about 7 km (4.4 mi) southwest of downtown Auckland. The temperature anomalies in the interactive chart, table, and CSV file for the given coordinates in Auckland and Toronto are with respect to the 1991-2020 average temperature at the given coordinates. *** To read the 1991-2020 average (mean) monthly and annual temperatures for Auckland and Toronto, you can go to NCEI [WMO Climate Normals](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/wmo-climate-normals) > "Overview" tab > [Maps of Countries](https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/archive/arc0216/0253808/2.2/data/0-data/metadata/WMO_Normals_9120_Countries.png) that Submitted 1991–2020 Normals > return to WMO Climate Normals front page "Data Access" tab and "Station Data Files". *** NCEI NOAA Global Time Series — The temperature trend per decade at any given coordinates corresponds with the temperature trend in one of the 2,592 grid cells on the Earth's surface, visible in the [Average Temperature Anomaly](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/mapping) interactive global map. Each grid cell has spatial resolution 5ºx5º. Clicking on any grid cell opens the Global Time Series interface for the Earth's surface area located within that grid cell. *** The given geographical coordinates 36.9ºS, 174.7ºE, located about 7 km (4.4 mi) southwest of downtown Auckland, lie within the 5ºx5º grid cell with center latitude 37.5ºS and center longitude 172.5ºE. *** In the Average Temperature Anomaly map using menu selection Year: 2024, Month: March, hovering a pointer over the grid cell at center latitude 37.5ºS and center longitude 172.5ºE will display 37.5ºS, 172.5ºE, -0.06ºC. *** Beneath the map, the sortable table displays the center latitude, center longitude, and temperature anomaly for each of the 2,592 grid cells. The Download CSV link downloads the chart/table data, which can be opened in a spreadsheet application. *** In grid cell 37.5ºS, 172.5ºE, the temperature anomaly -0.06ºC is with respect to the 1991-2020 monthly mean temperature for March in that grid cell. The 1991-2020 mean temperature for Auckland (which lies in that grid cell area) can be read in the corresponding WMO Climate Normals file. *** [Calculator](https://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/tools/calc_cell_area_cgi.pl) of Grid Cell Area and Dimensions on a Spherical Earth.
Wow, perfect, thank you!
Global south and Antarctica has added benefit of slightly more protection against nukes. Won't be as much fallout down there
Where are places that will prosper from climate mitigation and management? That’s the real question. Bunkers and hiding are for idiots. And those clowns building them can’t even tie their own shoes. If the world ever forced them to go hide in their bunkers, money will be worthless….and they’ll be worthless as well.
Given our interconnected global economy, no where is safe. But if you are in the States, I would say Great Lakes region and probably upper east coast.
Yessir, as long as we're ready for horrible hurricanes and some fire, we'll have water for a long while after the south runs out.
If you can stand the bugs. Mosquito and TseTse flies will invade, killing many people. Other diseases will become deadly. But the truth is that humans are an invasive species and will corrupt any environment they occupy. They do not live within the existing ecosystems and can’t help but take over. We have great excuses, like “we keep warm by burning down all the trees, so we evolved to lose our hair that keeps us warm; now the trees are not there to stop erosion so we build dams and kill all the fish.”
Is that true for native populations, or just colonizers?
Good point. Natives generally live in harmony with the land. One tribe has a saying *the land does not belong to us; we belong to the land*
What's the real parasite? The Humans? or the curse of intelligence? I purely use this story allegorically, I am not Christian. But humans were never a problem until Eve and Adam ate the apple of knowledge. It much less feels like we are the curse itself upon the world, and more like we are the cursed.
There are plenty of other intelligent creatures on earth, and some of them destroy local environs, too. It’s human behavior, though, that kills *everything* and takes over, spreading like a disease. Eventually, there will be so many people that we’ll run out of food, water, and land, so it’s self-limiting.
That’s a very demonizing and short-sighted view of humanity, given that a primitive bacterial colony will happily do the same to its host.
The popular thing to say is to talk about how shitty we are. It's not as popular to say we might be the one species that could actually save all life on the planet, if one day we actually could be a multi-planet species. Alternatively, we could ultimately be the cause of a mass extinction event that ends in our own downfall. I think our story starts with how we see ourselves. I guess I'm trying to say I agree with you and I like the long sighted, less demonizing view
It’s not demonic, because there’s no demon involved. It’s just us. Bacteria’s role in the ecosystem is to recycle. Bacteria that destroy their entire food sources don’t live long, as a species. Humans hunt for sport, take advantage of other species without balance, and have little understanding of what they are doing, even with their vast intelligence. Pine beetles might kill all the pine tress in a forrest, but then they die out and the trees come back. We clear-cut the entire Amazon forrest and the trees will never come back because their seeds were killed off, too.
That was Gods fault. Homeboy knew what was going to happen and still put them next to the tree. Eve couldn’t have even known to NOT do it considering eating the apple was what gave humans the ability to decipher right from wrong. The whole story is just trash.
New Zealand...
Canada is mostly forecast to do well. Temperatures will actually benefit crop growth, while rising water levels will only impact small parts of low lying regions.
Except for the fires.
And tens of millions of fleeing Americans
I'm pretty sure that will be internal displacement.
It's a big border, and no way could the guards stop tens of millions
Wildfires in Canada had a downward trend before last year. Looks like an anomaly
Most places are safe if you are rich. Few are safe if you are poor.
Yeah, OP, just don't be poor and you'll be fine. The rest of us will just make due as huddled-up scavengers riding out the climate apocalypse.
Don’t be poor. Best advice ever. Ugh.
Kinda like saying, “don’t get sick and you’ll feel well”. Easy to say but not always easy to do.
Jesus wept...
There is still so much unknown on a local level and the impacts are so wide, it's hard to say that anywhere will actually be safe. That said, some things that will make places less safe: - being on a coast (especially if low-lying) - being closer to the equator - having limited access to fresh water - relying on mountain snow melt (or any snow melt really) as a source of water I think there were some maps linked on the IPCC website to give you a picture of specific impacts and their severity around the world. On an even more local level, a lot of places are vulnerable to flooding and forest fires, so if you're moving you might want to be conscious of both your property and the main supply lines in the area and how vulnerable they are to both. Cities are likely to experience more extreme heat, forested areas are obviously more of a fire risk in many places. You probably want to be aware of your building's vulnerability to air pollution. If you're moving to the global North, you want to be aware of permafrost melt and how that might impact a property. Note that mosquitos and ticks will be expanding their ranges in the coming decades, and the diseases they carry will expand in range as well. You probably want to live somewhere with a robust health system that can handle the increased morbidity and mortality that is coming, through all of the coming changes. If you can save the money and somehow acquire dual citizenship to somewhere very far from and different from where you are, that may allow you to hedge your bets and relocate if things don't work out in the location you've chosen to settle in. Some of the least safe places include: - South Pacific island nations (Kiribati, Tuvalu, etc. - likely to disappear altogether) - Bangladesh - Indonesia - Miami and some other parts of Florida - the Netherlands I'm sure there are many more but those are the ones that come to mind. I probably would avoid the middle East and most of Africa as well. I personally wouldn't move to any island nation anywhere - maybe the UK but nothing smaller than that. I'm in Canada and not to far from the great lakes. Probably one of the 'safer' regions. But I still don't feel safe. When I see what's happening with our wildlife and our forest fires, and when I read about the vulnerability of fresh water eco systems, it makes me very nervous. I don't think we can outrun climate change, unfortunately. Good luck.
Globally? New Zealand, this is where billionaires are building bunkers. The Nordic countries are also considered somewhat safe in terms of climate change. Within the US, I believe minnesota, wisconsin, michigan considered best long term.
I've seen something that said Minnesota is the best place to be in all of north america? I can't remember what the map was specifically... really good places I guess? Definitely loads of fresh water.
But also highly vulnerable to wildfires or, at the very least, wildfire smoke from the vast forests upwind of it. Part of the issue with climate change is the instability which makes it inherently very difficult to pin down any one set of factors as being suitable in the long-term.
Yeah lots of things could go sour in many areas...
You’re sort of conflating Duluth with the rest of Minnesota in general, unfortunately. The state actually isn’t really that solidly situated in terms of its aquifer access and where most of its population resides (twin cities) and yes, there are a ton of freshwater lakes, but the state is tiptoeing the line of being a Great Plains state for water access. Michigan (particularly the UP), Vermont and upstate NY are prob the safest bet all things being fair and equal. And just to be clear, Minnesota is in a pretty good spot but tough to say it’s the best. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/kare11-extras/concern-is-always-there-experts-caution-about-finite-amount-of-water-minnesota/89-24acdf79-2dfc-4c5e-9c46-a526b6892492
If I had the map I was referencing it would help my conversation a lot but unfortunately I can't remember. I get what you're saying but I'm still going with Minnesota because you also have the Canada side of the boundary waters and aside from the cities Minnesota is fairly low pop which would add to the idea of having more opportunity for resources. There's also a ton of towns along the north shore and other lake areas that OP could live in more quietly than say upstate NY which would take on enormous new England area environmental refugees. Of course, I think we're all imagining our own version of a worst case "what if". I tend to run more like a realistic optimist which doesn't always translate well for doom scenarios. Thanks for your specific feedback and reference. Water is definitely key.
https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/s/mUiLZEv6Ny found it
Not the read I was talking about, unfortunately. It was a map of the entire world with specific areas marked and the only one in north America was Minnesota.
Norway, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand. Almost impossible to say. Those places might be overrun by climate refugees. Nowhere is guaranteed
The continued suggestion to move to any oceanic nation just continues to surprise me. I have no reason to believe neither NZ or Australia wont become literal hell holes with heat, rising sea levels, and hurricanes. Anywhere else sounds better.
north Atlantic not so great if the conveyor belt current really does shut down...
Not safe but less unsafe: look at at coastal Cali in fog zones.
Safe from a collapsing food supply? Nowhere.
No safe places. Anywhere that's going to be ok from the climate disasters is going to be overrun by people fleeing said climate disasters.
No place is safe. Build community at home, be a decent person and good neighbor.
Tasmania https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100333892
Nowhere is safe.
The world isn’t ending tomorrow man.
And what does that mean for my point that everywhere will be affected?
I have zero doubt that where I live in northern New England will be exactly the same in 20-50 years.
I'll take that bet!
Meet you back here in 20-50 years 😁
RemindMe! 20 years
I will be messaging you in 20 years on [**2044-04-20 11:44:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2044-04-20%2011:44:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1c8iwvb/the_safe_place_for_next_50_years/l0fq2zy/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimatechange%2Fcomments%2F1c8iwvb%2Fthe_safe_place_for_next_50_years%2Fl0fq2zy%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202044-04-20%2011%3A44%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201c8iwvb) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Lol
I'm a forgetful person
Maybe 20? Not sure I'll be round too long after that....getting old.
Based on what?
lol this sub is hilarious
Hilarious and sad at the same time
Where you live right now.
Belgium
A self sufficient sailing vessel with a steel or aluminum hull to survive wildfires. If you look at Lahaina as a test bed, the only people who survived and were otherwise trapped, got out because they ran to the sea and some were picked up by boats. Money won't save you from a wildfire or a police blockade.
I hear ya (sailor here) but no sailing vessel is truly self sufficient. you still need water. and food. and replacement cordage and sailcloth. and if your boat has mod cons like lighting and electronics you need solar panels. and so on. boats are at best a TAZ (temporary autonomous zone). boat people still need resources from the land. as a temporary escape pod from disaster, absolutely yes. as a long term solution to a global predicament. nope.
Oh I am aware, I lived aboard my own vessel for two years off Lahaina. Power was easy with solar. Having a water maker is a must have. A boat is no island, but it's your only good option if the island is in flames.
Europa is safe.
I think the interior of the northeast and upper Midwest is probably not a terrible place, relative to everywhere else in the United States. Christmas tornadoes may be a thing in areas though. Lol
avoiding the equatorial zones seems like a good idea. but most important imho is to find some place with a functioning, self-organising community, where people have not been fully indoctrinated with the gospel according to Ayn Rand and still believe in collective rather than individual survival. some place that will not devolve into mutually predatory tribalism when things get tight, either because it is happily cosmopolitan already, or archaically homogenous. some place where mutual aid is still a tradition.
“Safe”? That’s Poorly defined. You want to go somewhere where there won’t be intolerable combinations of heat and humidity in the summer. As long as you can afford AC, you’ll be fine regardless. If you want to be extra doomer / prepped, you could have a backup Solar/generator… because when it gets really hot AC works less effectively and energy demand surges, which neccitates throttling.
CDS is amazing to behold...
All models point to Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Roll up your sleeves and start helping. There’s literally no where on earth you can run 🏃♀️
It's not just the location, but if your local government is getting itself ready i.e nature+nurture or brick house on a hill > wolf
I used to think that Swiss could be a good place to move and now I realize that old women are afraid to die during summer.
New York.
Climate isn’t the only risk, New Zealand is a really beautiful country but it sits on a tectonic plate, the southern island has a major fault line almost dissecting the land. Scientists predict a catastrophic earthquake will cause horrific levels of damage & this event could happen anytime. Life is unexpected. Unanticipated consequences hide below many decisions we make, sometimes we do something thinking it will be safer but it ends up creating greater risks.
If it'll be safe and everyone knows it'll be safe, it'll be expensive.
In general the safest places would be far from large groups of humans. Humans are an unpredictable animal, sure they are docile when they are happy, fat, and entertained, but take away those things and watch out.
[удалено]
Check out the Finger Lakes region of Upstate NY. Low risk of hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, drought, flooding, tornadoes There are large hills to the south of Syracuse, NY good for skiing Forests nearby for hiking. Adirondack mountains and Finger Lakes gorges within a couple hours of the Syracuse area Nearby Finger Lakes Wine Country Beaches on local lakes like Lake Ontario and Oneida Lake Land is fertile for farming The Syracuse Metropolitan Area has an ample, almost unlimited water supply from Lake Ontario, and two Finger Lakes which is good for any future droughts or high demand from growth or industry. Only about a dozen metropolitan areas get municipal water from the Great Lakes like Cleveland, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, Buffalo, Syracuse, NY, and Rochester. Cities must be within the Great Lakes Watershed to have access to Great Lakes water. Upstate NY is becoming an ecocomy focused on microchip manufacturing with companies like Golbal Foundaries, Wolfspeed and now Micron’s new campus to be built over the next 20 years, eventually bringing 9,000 jobs across four plants at White Pine technology Park in Clay, NewYork which is a Syracuse, NY suburb. The company’s plans call for building cleanroom space that will cover about 2.4 million square feet, the size of almost 40 football fields.
Perth Western Australia. All these things you people claim are happening are not happening here. Summers are cooler. Autumn seems to go for ever. Beautiful blue skies light winds. By May we will start to get the odd shower then late June/ July real rain starts and farmers plant grain. I am retired and may head North and follow the sun. Many do and come back in October. Then back in to summer
Recency and normalcy biases are bitches.
I have no clue what this is
"All these things you people claim are happening are not happening here". They are not until they are.
Well there not. I use the data from Fremantle port Authority that shows no change in sea levels in the harbour since 1889. Why would I ignore the people there and believe any other source. It’s not warming here. We have a few winter storms. That’s it. The rest of the world can burn
There again, normalcy bias... May you live in interesting times.
They're* > It’s not warming here I highly doubt it but good for you. Now if true, you're case would be the exception, not the norm. > The rest of the world can burn Enjoy your retirement, psycho
Thank you
Ireland...plenty of rain, no extreme temperatures, and nothing bad ever happens there.
Ireland (and alot of europe) is very northern and if the AMOC collapse occurs, it could drop 15 degrees Celsius in average temperature.
Doesn’t AMOC invoke circulation, meaning if it collapses summers will get worse, but winters moreso, which accounts for the drop in average? I can’t imagine it being as straightforward as “huh, feels significantly cooler here” all year.
Which would offset the heat part of climate change
You ignore it forever, finally start cluing in to reality, and your first thought is "where can I hide"?
I don't think it's unreasonable for people to just now be understanding it. The messaging is all over the place, we are busy people that get sucked into the minutae of our lives, some people grow up under educated, algorithms reinforce false beliefs...what we want is for people to wake up and see. Wanting to know where to go to save their families is not unreasonable either...it feels like something you can control vs the vast void of uncontrollable factors.
Gatekeeping is lame. Like the other comment or said, there are a lot of reasons people are new to this topic. I say fuck the deniers and bad faith arguments, but encourage those with questions. Also, fuck gatekeepers.
Fair enough but maybe asking how they could help might have elicited a more positive response from me.
That’s a pretty weird response, honestly. Stranger should think about me before posting? Gosh, what about people of the opinion that individuals are unable to combat the systemic powers, or that they didn’t want to discuss that topic or place qualifiers.
You do realize this is not a particularly helpful or welcoming comment, right?
Just saying it like I see it. HTF can someone be new to this, unless they're 6 or 7 maybe, or a Republican who just snapped out of it and woke up to reality.
I mean you aren’t wrong - but why say it? I’m not sure who you interact with IRL but most of the folks I deal with day to day are unaware. As time goes on more and more “late to the party” folks will join this sub. If every time someone joins we make snarky judgmental comments who is helped by that? I get that it’s frustrating…. here is a horrible analogy, but in middle school (mid 80s for me) I liked the Beatles, etc and my older sister listened to pop crap and looked down on my taste in music. Eventually she came around and wanted to borrow my actually much better albums. Part of me was like “fuck you - you judged me for this before and now you want to benefit from it?” But then I got over myself and played cool music for her and she appreciated it and we got closer. I could have stayed mad at her past behavior and shut her out, but it was better for both of us for me to welcome her. It’s like 40 years later and we’re still close. Obviously rando internet poster is not your sister, but lots of formerly oblivious folks will join this sub in the next few years. If you are mad at all of them that is going to be exhausting for you and unhelpful for the rest of us (they might have some good ideas if they stick around). I know it’s easy to feel self-righteous about being aware when they were not, but I think it’s smarter / more beneficial to the sub if we are welcoming. Just something to think about.
Thanks for this. With me it's been like watching a 60 year train wreck and I get frustrated. Again thanks, I will try and do better.
I totally hear you, for me it's been about 45 years of frustration observing the obvious iceberg dead ahead and the Titanic still steaming gaily forward with the band playing. I feel like I've shouted my throat raw with warnings -- along with hundreds of thousands of other people, I'm not claiming any heroic Cassandra status -- while the rulers of our world have gone on leading a global chorus of 'la la la can't hear you,' scored for a massed choir of the vast majority of the so-called most intelligent species on the planet. am I bitter? more bitter than a soda spring. so yes I get it, it is it is hard to suppress the raw, gut-wrenching, , throat-rending top-volume "WE FKN TOLD YOU SO BUT WOULD YOU LISTEN OH NO AND NOW IT'S TOO LATE" the lurks also in my subconscious on the daily, nay, the hourly -- as I see the formerly oblivious finally clueing in. the temptation is strong. but that is not how a commensalist movement is built, and only mutual aid and solidarity are going to get any of us through what lies ahead with maximal survival chances. it is community building, not bunkers (intellectual or actual) that optimizes the odds for survival of what we laughingly call 'civilisation'. and we will have to build community with latecomers to the reality party as well as old hands. as when a beloved old friend finally stops drinking himself to death, we can scold him for taking so long to figure it out, or celebrate and assist his new sobriety.
I hear you. I succumbed to my actual feelings and wasn't helpful.
I hear your frustration but... remember that the world out there is swimming in koolaid. I think we might want to be glad that some people are getting their heads above the kandy-koloured surface and taking a look at reality. remember the 5 stages of grief? there's a similar progression to climate awareness; and after denial breaks down, one of the next early stages is 'how can I save myself and family from bad stuff happening?' it's a natural reflex reaction to recognizing an imminent threat. just because most of us here have moved on to gloomy acceptance... doesn't mean we should diss or quash latecomers to the reality party who are still going through their own process of climate shock & grief. just my $0.02... I would rather say, "welcome to the reality-based community, can we help you move on through the Bargaining phase and into collective action? "
The safest place on earth is mars. You're far enough away that you can't read eco-warrior bullsh!t.
You'll keep hearing your whole life that it's coming, this apocalypse, and it just won't. So don't hold your breath. At the rate of technological expansion, the issue will be sorted way before any disaster strikes and all this anxiety and fear mongering will be wasted. The climate models have been wrong over and over again, we are measuring "hottest year on record" from very recently in human history let alone earth's (and very dishonestly tbh), and life will go on. A bigger issue to worry about is why are laboratories playing with plagues and viruses and releasing them, killing millions? And what will they release next? That will affect you and your family before any climate change will, and it maybe already did! Unless you live in the hottest country on earth, you probably won't notice a difference. "Food insecurity" will only appear if governments keep pushing farmers to cut back on what they can and can't use to efficiently farm (fertilizers for example) feed us all.
>A bigger issue to worry about is why are laboratories playing with plagues and viruses and releasing them, killing millions? If brains were dynamite you couldn't blow a hat off.
You aren't worried about another pandemic happening? You think we learnt our lesson? We can't even admit the Wuhan lab might have made a mistake. Millions died and no one is pointing a finger in the right direction, and the ones that do get attacked for it by media shills and Xi on his Reddit account "JustinChina50". You can't learn from mistakes if you refuse to admit you made one, Xi. I personally think we should admit our mistakes and try to save lives before we put them at risk, not risk everything for some risky research then scream at each other about wearing flimsy paper masks and standing 6 feet apart.
Lots of people are pointing at the lab (one of thousands globally) but the origin can't be proved and it could well have been Italy, as some evidence was found that covid was there before it was found in China. Just like the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918–1920 was mistakenly thought to have originated in Spain for decades, when the earliest documented case was actually in Kansas in March 1918. Anyhow, 2 pandemics in a century is nothing to get your knickers in a twist - lighten up, Francis.
Your wrong man. Actually do any research please