where do you get the idea that populations will slowly move uphill?

The effects are non-linear. What you see is that Bangladesh goes from being a habitable city one year to one which is underwater 1/4 of the time, look at the massive floods there this year. Next year might be dry, but the year after that? It is already not sustainably habitable, but the people still live there.

China (noting that most of their industrial cities are coastal) might have a bit more time, but it is going to mean rebuilding all of the infrastructure they have built--where do the resources come from for that?

And another question, before the people move, are they going to clean up all of their toxic waste? If not, it all goes into the water with the flooding, which then kills their uphill livelihood because they live next to a huge pool of poison.

Fuck, after the hurricane hit Texas, they decided to scrap environmentally sound cleanup because it was "too expensive given the scale of the loss." If the US can't clean up, why would developing countries?

> What you see is that Bangladesh goes from being a habitable city one year to one which is underwater 1/4 of the time, look at the massive floods there this year. Next year might be dry, but the year after that? It is already not sustainably habitable, but the people still live there.

Really bad example. Floods have always been a problem in Bangladesh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s GDP loss from climate change under a 3C scenario is under 10%: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...

> Bangladesh goes from being a habitable city

Which city in Bangladesh are you talking about?

> Fuck, after the hurricane hit Texas, they decided to scrap environmentally sound cleanup because it was "too expensive given the scale of the loss." If the US can't clean up, why would developing countries?

Source? I'm not sure I've heard about this...

Populations might move uphill if they are unfamiliar with "dike" technology. About one third of the Netherlands lies below sea level, with the lowest point being 22 feet (6.7 meters) below sea level. Perhaps other nations might be capable of building small walls to keep the sea back as well.

Let's say you are right and we can farm the newly methane heavy, sinkhole infested permafrost in Russia and Canada. What does it mean for everyone else? Will they rely on food supply from Russia and Canada? Will Russia and Canada end up having huge migrations and become the biggest countries with billions of people?

Would they rely on food produced in the newly fertile lands? Of course. They'd probably themselves move there in order to farm it. Russia might be the next super power simply due to a population rush from lower latitudes.

There is currently a climate-related "population rush" from Syria into Europe and South America into the USA. In both cases, refugees have been subjugated to extremely inhumane conditions. If the USA, the freest country on earth, has caged climate refugees in concentration camps, do you expect Russia to be more generious?

I've wondered this as well.

A lot of these trends are nonlinear. Warming reaches critical thresholds and causes ice caps to disappear, decreasing the Earth’s albedo. Permafrost melts and releases huge stores of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

If it takes a hundred years, it’ll be more like 99 years of buildup before the dam bursts.