|
Right now, from a couple hours of googling, it seems like places on the coasts will flood a lot or even be underwater much of the time, but for inland-cities, as long as they're not expected to get extreme rains that cause flooding, there should be no problem for them. It might be uncomfortable hot or something, but the city itself won't have to make any real investment into defending itself from climate change. Overall, it really seems like the only threat US cities is flooding, caused either by being located near coastal bodies of water or by unfortunately being in an area that will receive more extreme precipitation. Do I understand it wrong?
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Seems about right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Incompetent leadership.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Agricultural disruption is the big threat, and it doesn't care if you're by the ocean or not. It even played a major role in precipitating the Syrian crisis - and via that, the current conflict with ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
You really shouldn't think of it strictly in terms of natural disasters. Imagine what's going to happen as fresh water scarcity becomes more of a thing and prices skyrocket.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
A wider geographical range for certain types of diseases will also be a large problem for a number of U.S. cities. There are some nasty bugs that hitch a ride on vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, ect. that will likely spread to previously unaffected areas as climate change progresses. These vectors and their carry-ons will be able to survive and possibly flourish in areas that previously had severe enough winters to prevent this, as an example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Hotter summers means more air-conditioners, which means more power. Colder winters means more heaters, which means more power. More power doesn't materialize out of nowhere: it forces the creation of new plants that will only wind up contributing to the problem of global warmer. Extreme temperatures also mean more death. Drought should also be a major concern. Rising ocean levels will push back on rivers, forcing salt water into our fresh water supply. Mixed with our own positively stupid tendencies towards wasting and polluting what little drinking water we have, there very may well come a day when a gallon of water might cost more than a gallon of gas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
QuietLion posted:There are some nasty bugs that hitch a ride on vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, ect. that will likely spread to previously unaffected areas as climate change progresses. These vectors and their carry-ons will be able to survive and possibly flourish in areas that previously had severe enough winters to prevent this, as an example. This is already happening quickly. Disease-carrying ticks are spreading north in Canada where they've never been before and to populations who've never dealt with them before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
The increased salinity in the air will be a major issue for farming across the world. Not to mention entire disruption of ecosystems due to the rapidly changing climate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
ToastedCrumbs posted:The increased salinity in the air will be a major issue for farming across the world. Huh? Is this possibly an issue anywhere that isn't immediately near the ocean? I mean, barring potential changes in the location of the shoreline given rising sea levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Huh? Is this possibly an issue anywhere that isn't immediately near the ocean? I mean, barring potential changes in the location of the shoreline given rising sea levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Rising seas will cause many of the worlds aquifers to be contaminated with saltwater.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:because salt is carried by rainclouds and the wind. coastal areas receive the majority of salt spray from the ocean, but it will still continue inland. additionally, as traditionally arid areas receive more rainfall, there'll be more salt returning to the sea over time. Internet Explorer posted:Rising seas will cause many of the worlds aquifers to be contaminated with saltwater. Neither of these make any sense to me. I'm not aware of any entire aquifers that will be contaminated with saltwater, merely those that are relatively close to the shoreline. Fresh water "floats" on top of salt water, which is why you can drill a well on an island and get potable water. Saltwater intrusion is certainly a problem, but it's very much localized to areas near the shore, or at worst very low-lying areas like coastal estuaries and whatnot. I've also seen nothing about increased salt spray having any appreciable effect on soil or agriculture. Soil salinity can be a problem with excessive use of fertilizers and whatnot, or in particularly arid regions when heavy irrigation is used, but neither of those have to do with air salinity/salt spray. I'm legitimately curious because my undergrad thesis was related to saltwater intrusion in domestic supply wells, and now I work partially in the agricultural field. Can anyone offer a link? Basic googling isn't turning anything up that's related to the salt spray/air salinity issue, at least in any way that would be a threat to world-wide agriculture. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:I'm legitimately curious because my undergrad thesis was related to saltwater intrusion in domestic supply wells, and now I work partially in the agricultural field. I've never seen an a/t thread get owned before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Neither of these make any sense to me. I'm not aware of any entire aquifers that will be contaminated with saltwater, merely those that are relatively close to the shoreline. Fresh water "floats" on top of salt water, which is why you can drill a well on an island and get potable water. Saltwater intrusion is certainly a problem, but it's very much localized to areas near the shore, or at worst very low-lying areas like coastal estuaries and whatnot. I now also find myself wondering about the impact of saltwater vs not saltwater in erosion. Such as, for example, in the future apocalyptic hellscape currently known as Miami. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Chiming in that I've never heard of salt spray being a significant climate change factor, and I just defended my PhD in ocean science. 1) How does ocean salt spray have an effect beyond a couple miles inland? AFAIK halogen transport is extremely localized to near-shore, I did my thesis on atmospheric halogen compounds. 2) How would climate change alter salt spray and salinization of inland soils in a meaningful way? I don't see where there's a real feedback. I would say the most immediate threats to cities are sea-level rise since many major cities are coastal, combined with salinization of groundwater which will be more of a problem in cities built on top of porous rocks like limestone. Miami and Florida in general is super hosed. LogisticEarth posted:Neither of these make any sense to me. I'm not aware of any entire aquifers that will be contaminated with saltwater, merely those that are relatively close to the shoreline. Fresh water "floats" on top of salt water, which is why you can drill a well on an island and get potable water. Saltwater intrusion is certainly a problem, but it's very much localized to areas near the shore, or at worst very low-lying areas like coastal estuaries and whatnot. I agree I've never seen anything about air salinity before, that's not even a quantity I'm aware of being measured. Not that it doesn't exist, I'd just like a citation because it's completely new to me. Also agree that salwater intrusion is a problem near-shore, but you've got continued pumping and depletion of fresh groundwater and isostasy helping salt water infiltrate depleted aquifers. It's an extreme problem near-shore where there's porous bedrock, which happens to be a lot of major metropolitan areas. GreyjoyBastard posted:I now also find myself wondering about the impact of saltwater vs not saltwater in erosion. Such as, for example, in the future apocalyptic hellscape currently known as Miami. Well, seawater is more corrosive on metal stuff like ship hulls but there's not much difference between fresh and salt water for erosion. If anything, fresh water is worse since it tends to be slightly acidic (rainwater pH ~ 4.0, seawater 8.6) and it has fewer dissolved ions (salts) and thus can dissolve more itself. The main problem is that saltwater is unusable unless it's (expensively) distilled into fresh water. Salt water isn't drinkable and will kill virtually all our food crops. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Basically I would agree with LogisticEarth, salinization is gonna be really bad for areas near sea level but for example the American Great Plains (noted bread-basket region) won't be affected by the oceans and instead only has to deal with changing climate patterns. I think that loses sight of the larger problem, though. Florida is going to be extremely affected by sea-level rise and salinization, so they need to get their fresh water from somewhere. There are many populous areas that will be rendered uninhabitable without huge amounts of fresh water from outside being imported in, that's why scientists are really worried about fresh water availability in the future. Our demands are growing while availability (especially in coastal areas) will shrink significantly due to climate change and sea-level rise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:You really shouldn't think of it strictly in terms of natural disasters. Imagine what's going to happen as fresh water scarcity becomes more of a thing and prices skyrocket. This is what I came to post. Resource scarcity will be the much bigger threat - and honestly, I think the widening wage gap will come into play. The richer you are, the easier it is (generally) to work from anywhere, and there will be a deurbanization (particularly along low lying coastal areas and the south), to areas with a relatively milder climate and less risk of catastrophic storms (tornadoes, flooding, etc) along with less strain on water supplies, less frequent drought, etc. All of a sudden, Burlington VT or Portland ME might look a lot more appealing than, say, Miami if you're a corporate exec, independent consultant or financial adviser that works 100% remote. Just my thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
I have a fantastic bridge in Wisconsin that I am wiling to sell, op.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Also agree that salwater intrusion is a problem near-shore, but you've got continued pumping and depletion of fresh groundwater and isostasy helping salt water infiltrate depleted aquifers. It's an extreme problem near-shore where there's porous bedrock, which happens to be a lot of major metropolitan areas. Yeah, I kind of forget that there are loads of metro areas that get their water largely from production wells near the coast. I'm up in PA, and most metro areas around here get their water supplies from rivers/reservoir systems well-removed from the risk of saltwater intrusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:All of a sudden, Burlington VT or Portland ME might look a lot more appealing than, say, Miami if you're a corporate exec, independent consultant or financial adviser that works 100% remote. Just my thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
What about the potential for literal refugees from Florida and NYC if climate change is worse than expected? Like, wouldn't you have to worry about Chicago, etc. going Mad Max due to Florida population (20 million) plus NYC population (8 million) all looking for a new place to live in the space of like 10 years? Say 2025-2035? An acquaintance told me that earthquakes could become more common in some places. Is there any truth to that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Like, wouldn't you have to worry about Chicago, etc. going Mad Max due to Florida population (20 million) plus NYC population (8 million) all looking for a new place to live in the space of like 10 years? Say 2025-2035? There is a huge amount of empty space in the middle of this country so I don't think everyone would just descend on Chicago. Yeah there would definitely be a lot of serious economic consequences to the coastal populations leaving and fleeing inland, but it would not be anything like a Mad Max kind of scenario. Probably more akin to the Dust Bowl but on a larger scale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Loomer posted:Agricultural disruption is the big threat, and it doesn't care if you're by the ocean or not. It even played a major role in precipitating the Syrian crisis - and via that, the current conflict with ISIS. Actually this is already affecting so many areas of the world. Australian farmers have been struggling with drought that has dried up rivers and creek beds. Could probably use some more sustainable farming methods though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:There is a huge amount of empty space in the middle of this country so I don't think everyone would just descend on Chicago. I'm not expert on the meterological / water cycle / agricultural side of things (although I don't think that can be right about earthquakes - anyone?). A bit about the economic impacts though - In my work I advocate for pension funds to get serious about climate change. This matters because currently a pretty large proportion of the stuff they invest in could be worthless as the world economy comes under shocks and strains from climate change. The political and economic turmoil (Austria may just be about to elect a far-right leader) in central and Medeterrenian Europe right now caused by people fleeing the Middle East is a tiny taste of things to come. Massive population upheaval in semi-arid and coastal areas will destabalise many more countries as this century continues. At the same time investing in coal, oil and gas, like most every pension fund does, is not a good call as, aside from making the problem worse, most of the companies that extract this stuff are overvalued - Governments have agreed to try and deal with climate change and as they begin to do this more seriously that will leave a lot of fossil fuel assets 'stranded'. The best hope for your inland ideal best case scenario city, after it has dealt with the new diseases, pests, heat and water stress, might be to spend most of your savings on guns and walls, and for God sake turn the TV off because it's gonna be pretty depressing viewing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Food shortages will make high population densities harder/more expensive. That's a big one. Chocolate, coffee, and a few other tropical foods may be very very difficult to grow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:Food shortages will make high population densities harder/more expensive. That's a big one. I've seen at least a couple articles recently claiming that coffee crops are already starting to lose yield.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:There is a huge amount of empty space in the middle of this country so I don't think everyone would just descend on Chicago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So, you're saying people who have come to enjoy living in the Greatest City on Earth® will be happy to just move to what you call "empty space"? I'm pretty sure people used to urban living will look for that when they abandon the coast. Considering the sheer number of people potentially displaced, you could get a ton of well-off climate refugees descending on a city like Chicago, resulting in locals being priced out and having to move to, I don't know, Gary instead. It's not like you need every New Yorker to go there to cause some significant effects. Yeah, like I said, there would be serious economic impacts, akin to the Dust Bowl but larger. But what you are describing is not remotely close to a "Mad Max" type situation with full societal breakdowns and armies fighting wars over gasoline and water in the middle of the midwest. It's not like everyone in NYC is going to immediately feel the need to go all the way to Chicago, or that everyone would focus on Chicago specifically. There is a ton of land in between the coast in Chicago, which is full of medium sized and small cities with a way of living that everyone from east coast cities is already used to. It's not like life in Pittsburgh or Wheeling would be some radical adjustment for someone living on the coast. Also I wasn't making some catty comment with "empty space" there are literally large regions of the country that are unsettled, and if there were a massive population movement from the east coast some people would gravitate to them, just as they did last time there were large waves of people moving from the east coast. If the movements are huge enough, some areas that are currently national parks or national forests might lose that status, but again that's hardly a Mad Max sort of scenario. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Yeah, like I said, there would be serious economic impacts, akin to the Dust Bowl but larger. But what you are describing is not remotely close to a "Mad Max" type situation with full societal breakdowns and armies fighting wars over gasoline and water in the middle of the midwest. Earwicker posted:Also I wasn't making some catty comment with "empty space" there are literally large regions of the country that are unsettled, and if there were a massive population movement from the east coast some people would gravitate to them, just as they did last time there were large waves of people moving from the east coast. If the movements are huge enough, some areas that are currently national parks or national forests might lose that status, but again that's hardly a Mad Max sort of scenario. That said, I'm not arguing Mad Max, I just don't think the idea of climate refugees just scattering across the continent is realistic vs. them concentrating in specific hubs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The New York–Newark urban area has almost an order of magnitude greater population than the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, which itself is close to two orders of magnitude larger than Wheeling. I'm not sure you can just transplant people from one to the other, like the population of the urban area you live in doesn't have a big impact on the culture. Pittsburgh and Wheeling were a couple of examples, my point is that there are a lot of such small and medium sized cities people could move to, so there's no reason to assume that the entire population of the eastern seaboard would all descend on any one of them. Also, having lived in both Pittsburgh and NYC for many years in both, there is not exactly major cultural differences between those places, it's mostly little things that are relatively easy to get used to. quote:But cities have generally developed where they did for good reasons, and infrastructure has developed around them. Why build everything from scratch, rather than just expand on already functional cities? Certainly many of those already functional cities would be expanded on, but also in times of major upheavals there will be people who gravitate towards areas where they can start a "new" life. Just as during the major waves of emigration from Europe in the 19th century there were some people who settled in the established cities on the east coast and some people who pushed further west to become homesteaders. And no I don't think climate change refugees would be scatted evenly across the continent, but I really don't think enough one descend on any one specific location to a degree that it would cause some sort of post-apocalyptic society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:An acquaintance told me that earthquakes could become more common in some places. Is there any truth to that? Earthquakes are driven by plate tectonics which operate on geologic timescales, I don't see how climate change is going to affect that. The exception might be smaller quakes caused by loving with aquifers like you see with fracking. Overpumping of aquifers and continued use of fracking would probably lead to increased earthquakes but those will be local and not very destructive. The most damaging earthquakes are caused by megathrust faults at subduction zones like around the Pacific "ring of fire," climate doesn't have anything to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Getting hit in the head by pieces of falling sky will be the biggest risk OP. Estimates are millions dead. :-D
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Earthquakes are driven by plate tectonics which operate on geologic timescales, I don't see how climate change is going to affect that. If it progressed enough to melt much of the continental ice sheets, isostatic rebound (land floats back up after you unload the weight of the ice) could probably give you some earthquakes. I don't get the feeling they would be especially big though, and at that point you have bigger things to worry about than some earthquakes in Greenland and Antarctica.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:If it progressed enough to melt much of the continental ice sheets, isostatic rebound (land floats back up after you unload the weight of the ice) could probably give you some earthquakes. I don't get the feeling they would be especially big though, and at that point you have bigger things to worry about than some earthquakes in Greenland and Antarctica. Yeah that's a good point. It's technically correct that we'll see more earthquakes as a result of climate change but I don't think it's going to be a significant threat. Or at least compared to other impacts of global warming it's a pretty minor concern.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
A few million refugees from Syria and North Africa are causing social upheaval across Europe. There are over 150 million people in Bangladesh alone and it's one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. Forced migration of climate refugees, and the conflict that comes with that, will probably be the worst part of climate change. You might think "oh I'm an American/Canadian so we'll just accept some token number of refugees to make ourselves feel better and watch the others starve on CNN, like usual." Wrong! We're talking hundreds of millions of people displaced from their homes in a relatively short span of time (like a decade). That's like nothing we've ever seen before and that many desperate people would absolutely put a huge amount of pressure on the US and every other country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
It's not going to be like Mad Max or the Road or Waterworld. And when people realize that they always shrug like "Oh well in that case I guess it'll suck but can't be THAT bad." Um, we're the most coddled human beings that have ever lived. Our idea of calamity is when the internet goes down and the local liquor store is closed. For decades the only existential threats we've had to worry about were ennui and the abstract threat of nuclear war. We literally can't imagine what a serious threat to our way of life would look like, so instead we think about fantasy stories like Mad Max. Climate change will be traumatizing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:It's not going to be like Mad Max or the Road or Waterworld. I'm holding out for more of a Canticle for Liebowitz sort of scenario personally
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Earwicker posted:I'm holding out for more of a Canticle for Liebowitz sort of scenario personally All that will be left are 2016 debate notes, Canticle for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:48
|
|