Where to live

There is a lot of misinformation posted online about where to live through climate change. 

You are going to invest a lot of time and energy to get a place sustainable, the days of house flipping are over. Your property is now your life and for your offspring as well. A bad choice is going to be disastrous.

There are a number of factors that need to be considered. The decision needs to be strategic. 
Human migration
A dying sea
Sea level rise
Temperature
Energy
Safety
Food
Community
Drought
Flood
Fire


Once these (and perhaps other) considerations have been taken into account then the choice is to stay or go. It comes down to this. If you stay in an area that is unsustainable for much of the population, then your considerations are going to be about initial defense and then implementing adaptions that will sustain you. If you choose to go to an area that environmentally can sustain many people then you would have to go and fortify because the threats will be constant.

Personally, I will choose adaptation because mankind has a propensity for warfare. More about security here.

Human Migration

We have a historical reference for human migration in the western world, the great depression in the US. As well as modern ones from a study of male migration in Pakistan (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-stress-drives-climate-migration/)

The main factor for migration, is work, and consequently, money. Those that move have to do so because they are poor and uneducated. In 1930 people on farms were poor, but they were able to grow some food so they predominantly stayed where they were. Those without land and a job simply had to move to survive.

"The Children's Bureau estimated that by late 1932 a quarter of a million under the age of twenty-one were roaming the country."

In a land of 123 million that was 1 in 500 children were homeless. As bad as is it sounds that is not the full picture for our future. In 1930 only 50% of the population lived in cities. As the transients were predominantly from the cities that changes the rate of homeless children to 1 in 250 from city families. 

But, for our future, there is an additional problem, the population density. In 1930 those living in city suburbs had a higher ratio of land to building. So for some, there was still the possibility of growing their own food albeit on a small scale. Now however, our urbanization has significantly trended towards bigger houses on smaller lots. We have taken on more and more debt to live in unsustainable environments.

I will take Los Angeles as an example.

In 1930 Los Angeles had a population of  1,238,048 but in 2010 it was 3,792,621. Currently at its most dense urban part of LA there is 42,000 people per sq mile.

http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/population/density/neighborhood/list/

Another example, in China Roughly 1 billion Chinese (or more than 90% of the population) live in only a little more than 30% of China's land area.  The population density of this area is 354 people per square kilometer (Heilig 1999). 

So there is a historical measure of the migration forces to be seen in the future. However, while some of the forces at work are similar, they will be compounded many times over. The implications for this is that the human migration will be vast.

The financial depression will not be short. Debt deleveraging will result in banks holding worthless assets.

• As mentioned elsewhere energy sources will continue to dwindle. So rebuilding or creating new infrastructure will be harder and harder. Energy is a major component in the price of food. 
• The oceans are dying from lack of oxygen. Currently 1 billion people rely on fishing for their protein. It will take centuries to millennium for the situation to be fixed. 
• The environmental factors will be much larger and deteriorating at an ever increasing rate. These are having and will continue to have a massive impact on food prices. 
• Food shortages will be constant and increasing. Prices are going to rise and continue to rise. 
• The people will be unskilled in any sort of practical knowledge. By that I mean our skillsets have moved further and further away from blue collar jobs. However, it will be those skills that will be most in demand. 
• The transient people will be those whose debt levels forced them into work situations that did not allow them time to prepare. With the current levels of private debt this is an impossible situation. 

Just looking at the last point. This is the private debt (US) picture as compared to GDP. The blue line is the household debt.

Unable to service their debts, and feed themselves they will have to leave their assets behind and move.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that transient migration will be primarily in the form of poor, uneducated people moving to higher latitudes. Keeping in mind that one can assume, from the geological record, that humans first moved North out of Africa, forced onward by competition. The climate was extraordinarily warm and the population was exploding, one can assume that without any social regulation violence would have been a normal part of life. So migration will occur, because the people have no choice.

Unfortunately, the higher latitudes will not support it. There is simply not enough arable land. That is compounded by the lack of infrastructure. Building infrastructure takes time and energy. Depending on how quickly this happens will determine how effectively a land mass can transition to supporting a billion extra people. Given a pending and permanent energy crises structuring an area the size of, for example Siberia, seems a difficult proposition. Without any support government structure and safety net, it would be likely that security would be found in gangs.

Therein lies the problem with moving to a higher latitude to escape the heat, the problem will be not the physical environment but perhaps the social one. From wikipedia, places economically disadvantaged have a higher rate of crime.

Sea level rise

Minimum realistic measurement for sea level rise 1m by 2100. Don't underestimate your enemy. Things are decaying at a much faster rate than anyone anticipated. Some of it is to do with air pollution, and its impact on the albedo (reflectivity) of ice.(link) It's a big deal, and not factored into any mathematical models.
You don't want to plan to have water front properties because sea level rise is not going to stop. More than likely it will speed up. It will more than likely finish at 70m. That's a long time off and there will be much bigger problems by then. 

But that is not the final story. Assuming that governments will be completely financially stretched (and some ruined). You need to factor on the state of the infrastructure, in order that you can still access civilization when needed. An example might be what happens to Narooma (NSW, Australia) at 7m

The main road connecting North is taken out. There is no way around because of the mountains. Going South it starts to get washed out as well. Trapped. The other issue is going to be energy. We have consumed it at ridiculous rates and from now onward it is only going to get more expensive. That has flow on effects for the cost of goods and services.

Temperature

The problem with temperature increases will be the extremes, not the day to day averages. 4C average increase will decimate humanity primarily due to food supply. A normal summer peak in the southern highlands is now 40C. So an increase to 44C is definitely survivable assuming a well behaved anomaly. Chances are it won't be so well behaved so factor on 50C. But the problem is not actually the temperature. It is the humidity. Your body uses the evaporation of sweat to cool. Sweat evaporates when the temperature is high and the air is dry. The evaporation pulls heat from the skin. In a hotter world humidity will go up. That is a big problem, it is not one for the distant future, it is currently killing people around the world.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/staff/profiles/sherwood/wetbulb.html

The following maps show the WBGT in 1975, 2000 and 2000+3C for Jun, Jul and Aug. You can see how +3C is getting dangerous for some locations. It is not difficult to imagine how +4 or +5C would be deadly. So unless people can adapt their living arrangements migration will result.

Between sea level rise and increasing WBGT there are some U.S lower latitude states that are going to get very uncomfortable.



Australian lower latitudes and the interior are going to get dangerous.



Pakistan and India look to be in real trouble though


How would the world look if it hits 10C



(From here)
There seems to be some inconsistencies between the maps but overall the situation is not good. Australia looks bad but there are not many people living in the interior. However, look at Brazil, China and the Eastern US. That's a lot of people affected.

You (and your food) only have to survive the hot spells.
During the heat waves, the best place to be is ;
In air conditioning. Have a backup plan should the air con fail.
In water. Provided it is cool enough to disperse your body heat.
Really high up
Under ground
In another part of the world.

Fire and drought

From this post. Do NOT move into an area with antiquated rules regarding the preservation of trees. Not that I am proposing that we cut down all the trees, but not all trees are the same in respect to fire, see the post for more information.

Debt

Places with higher levels of unserviceable debt will experience significantly more social problems than others. As seen by the sub-prime crisis. Let's start with a poverty map.

Poverty is going to be a huge problem because the cost of living is going to escalate. Those that are poor are going to get poorer.

Add another factor, not so much personal debt, but rather state debt. To service state debt taxes are going to be raised.

As an example, here is US state debt per capita

Now add to that unfunded liabilities. These are obligations that the states have that are yet to come due.

Those debts are in theory cleared through new taxes. That is going to be a tough sell in an environment where food prices are going up, baby boomers have retired, and asset prices are decreasing. It becomes obvious that Illinois is in trouble. 

Another issue that needs to be considered is disease. Drug resistant bacterial infections in hospitals are a very serious threat.



A total collapse would have serious repercussions for the world's idle nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors can be shutdown, but even when shutdown they need critical maintenance until fully decommissioned. Decommissioning takes years. More details here. Workers living in a safe stable environment now here are the US reactors on a map and their impact area of a meltdown. Notice again Illinois.

This will not be allowed to happen. There would be a nationalization of state debt, unionized retirees will have their pensions cut, independent retirees will have their pensions slashed. However, one issue from the above map is to look at where a city receives its water from. If it is from ground water and there is a chance of contamination from a local reactor then it would finish the community. To truly evaluate your risk go to this site. Figure out what the risks are associated with a reactor close to you. They are not all the same.

Careful analysis of the maps above can offer safe havens. As covered in migrations staying put without a sufficiently connected community is not sustainable, there are historical precedents. If you are living in a dense urban environment in a high risk area, it would seem prudent to pick a sustainable environment and move early. Moving later will mean you are competing for housing. If you have kids plan for their future, don't leave it too late.

The atmospheric contamination from even a couple of meltdowns would have deadly consequences for the health of the current generation. The oceans however are going to be affected regardless of whether or not there are fires. A significant number of reactors are located close to the sea so that they can access water. They will be flooded by the sea level rise.

In addition there would be nuclear contamination of the soil. The oceans will be considered dead for one or more generations, nothing could be eaten from it with confidence. Already the contamination from Fukishima is a concern. The soil contamination would decimate the longevity and vitality of the population that ate from it. Any sort of national economy would struggle to ever get back on its feet.

The nuclear contamination will impact the whole world but none so much as the Northern hemisphere. It can be shown that global air circulation is actually slowing down, though it won't stop. The longer it takes for the air to mix between the North and the South the better, and the more localized the damage.

Hydrogen Sulphide

Finally, regionally the last to consider the risks of being near the ocean. There are going to be some areas of the ocean that will release hydrogen sulphide. The Pacific North West is now borderline. To understand why here is a link.

Local considerations

Position yourself off the flood plain. A highland position is better. Besides more violent storms, there is another reason. From the diseases page you want to be at least 3km away from mosquito breeding grounds and higher up where there is more wind.
Look for a street plan that has 2 exits, but not more than that. A single exit can be blocked by fire or a gang. More than 2 exits will become very difficult to defend.
Position yourself close to forest/bush but a minimum of one street away. You don't want to have to deal with forest fires.
You need to be somewhere within short driving distance to a train station. (Peak oil is not far off)

Mines/Caves

Well you don't want to live among arsenic tailings, but a hard rock quarry gives you thermal protection as the dwellers of Coober Pedy have known for a long time. This suggestion is of course extreme, but the example of Coober Pedy, and the Eden project in England suggest that living in caves and mines does not equate to being a caveman.
A shallow cave, in the upper few tens to perhaps hundred meters of the earth, will be cool, and at about the average annual air temperature for the region. This is because the upper earth, the first few meters, will warm with the air in summer and cool with air in the winter. If you go deeper than a few meters, the annual cycle of air temperature changes isn't able to affect the internal temperature of the earth. it takes time for the temperature change to migrate through soil and rock. But shallow mines tend to be cold, and since they are wet as well, it can be miserable.