I’m wondering if climate change is going to make the northern parts of the world more attractive for human habitation. I’m also curious if any companies or individuals with a long view are investing in land in places not currently too comfortable in hopes that global warming will make them more attractive. I recall reading about an ice free Arctic and its implications for global trade but I’ve not seen anything about prospective climate change-spurred migration. Alaska is really, really big and only has a population of about 750,000. Is its population likely to boom in the near future?
Still too dark.
And there’s been no warming in 17 years.
Unless the population moving there is 5:1 female:male, it will never work. Most of Alaska is not suited for farming anyway, and everything costs too much because it has to be shipped in. Better to hunker down in Nebraska and buy a new air conditioner.
I predict a general and long lasting migration of North American wheat production from its present epicenter in the plains states of Nebraska and the Dakotas to significantly north, and the same can be said for Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan’s production epicenter.
As an example, I can imagine that 10-15 years from now, South Dakota will be able to provide a better winter wheat crop because of the generally later frost and earlier thaw.
Nothing that strange. And it happens year by year, not overnight. We have seen this with several and various species that have migrated north from the tropics as the weather here in North America became more hospitable since (at least) the ending of the Little Ice Age.
But, even so, there are other curious characteristics of the tundra that are worthy of interest: Possible role of wetlands, permafrost, and methane hydrates in the methane cycle under future climate change: A review
Even under the most pessimistic models, average temperatures aren’t going to change that much. I don’t think you’re going to see mass migration to Fairbanks just because the average temperature in January goes from -16 to -10.
Just like in the 60s-70’s popular media is getting the “no warming” wrong, a super majority of scientists reported back then that after an apparent “pause” warming was coming, they were correct. There is more support now to report that the “pause” we see now will be a memory also.
The problem right now is that we are dealing with a moving target, the bottleneck is being made now by the almost unchecked emission levels that we have now.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html
IIUC the issue is not that we can adapt to those changes, the issue is what some people that know more call it a bottleneck, because it will be a change that will take in a relatively short amount of time, and a good number of the flora and the fauna are not as flexible as we can be. And not knowing when the amount of greenhouse gases is finally controlled makes this worse for planing having crops in Alaska because local conditions (and the timing of the change) will be hard to predict until there is a predictable and controlled amount of emissions. In the meantime, thanks to the warming, we are more likely to see increases in extreme weather events affecting the current population in locations close to the north pole.
No. Alaska is experiencing longer and colder winters, as a result of 'global warming". According to the latest modifications to the models, less sea ice results in more evaporation, meaning more snow; more snow=colder winters (sunlight reflection from increased albedos).
in short, don’t plan to move to Alaska.
It’s important to recall that “global warming” only means that the Earth on average gets warmer; it may well get colder in various regions of the world even as the world as a whole grows warmer. For example there are worries that disruption of the present climate could chill Europe down to the climate that Canada now has, causing widespread crop failures and famine.
Here’s what I think I know. Which isn’t much.
Climate Change means there will be more extreme weather, more often. Though temperatures will rise during hot periods, they will also fall during cold periods to new records, but only by a couple of degrees. That’s already happening, if records are to be believed. There will be more blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc, more powerful and more damaging than ever before.
The only part I am still not sold on is the effects of sea levels rising. Varying predictions make it hard to know what I should believe on that front. Some say it’ll be so high entire coastlines will change, shallow islands will disappear, which seems impossible to fight; while others say there will be only a slight rise which may cause more frequent levee and breakwater breaches, which seems potentially manageable.
Similar situation in Colorado, our weather patterns are moving and some areas are getting more rain than they used to. Recent storms and flooding could possibly have been affected by warming in the Pacific Ocean, as that’s where our weather comes from. A fraction of a degree multiplied by all those many square miles results in a large amount of energy. It’s conceivable we’ll end up getting more snow each year on average, especially along the Front Range.
Move to Greenland!
It appears that the SW coastal region of that island is warming up.It is now possible to grow potatoes, cabbages, and strawberries there. If the temps rise further, apple cultivation might be possible!
My experience is that the few who report the low levels of an increase are usually not well regarded or they are part of the contrarian media.
The Gulf Stream appears to be largely responsible for keeping Europe warm with massive gusts of warm Caribbean air. The current blows northeast and largely bypasses North America. If you haven’t done so, take a look at major European cities and see what US and/or Canadian cities have a similar latitude - you may be surprised to find that major temperate European cities are as far north as Labrador and Florida is as far south as Egypt and Miami is further south than all of Iraq.
Great. More fodder for the crowd of ignoramuses who will now post:
Hurrrr… Alaska get more snow, so global warming is false! Herp Derp!
I guess they’ll need some of the hardy food stocks that we’ve developed and are using here. 
(How are those genetically-modified crops looking to you now, starving folk?)
The difficulty is that climate isn’t just one-dimensional. If it were just a matter of a uniform temperature shift, and Kansas got too hot for wheat but the Dakotas got warm enough, then the breadbasket would just shift northward, and adaptation would be easy. But the growing conditions in the Dakotas in the future won’t be the same as the conditions now in Kansas. Winters won’t get warmer by the same amount as summers. Times of daylight will be different. Precipitation will be different, both in amount and in what proportion is rain vs. snow. And as a result, most of what we know about farming will have to be re-evaluated. North Dakotans won’t be able to just plant and harvest their wheat at the same times Kansans used to. What worked before won’t continue to work.
Now, sure, we’ll eventually learn what does work. But that takes time. The whole problem with global warming is that it happens so quickly.
No, people will move inland to evade sea level rise and increased flooding. Maybe Denver is the place to invest. LA and NY are toast. Miami? Forget about it. Bye bye NO.
With lots and lots of bottled water once the Oglala aquifier goes dry.