> People have laughed but my vineyard in Sitka, Alaska will soon be producing world-class Cabs

I had this discussion with a previous CEO at a company I worked for here in Sweden a few years ago: he (being a type-A personality, and also loving fast sports cars) was very upbeat about global warming, and saw it as an opportunity to take over the Mediterranean role of growing grapes, olives and other foods that needed a warmer climate.

I couldn’t convince him that what will probably happen instead, would be a less predictable climate, with all sorts of micro-effects (such as more rain or extreme weather) making grapes rot on the vine or olives whither in the sudden freezes.

Thinking that the micro-climate of a certain area - affected by land-masses and nearby seas and other specific circumstances - will simply move north and southwards, strikes me as very naive.

Stockholm at 59.33°N is about .5 degree North of Churchill in Northern Manitoba. Without the Gulf Stream your friend may be in for a rude surprise: polar bears rather than grapes and olives.

> Churchill is a town in northern Manitoba, Canada, [...] most famous for the many polar bears that move toward the shore from inland in the autumn, leading to the nickname "Polar Bear Capital of the World" that has helped its growing tourism industry.

Thanks to climate change, by 2050 it will be blessed by 14 summer days, up from 8 in 2021. Not sure that's enough to scare the bears away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Manitoba

https://climateatlas.ca/map/canada/25C_2030_85#z=6&lat=55.65...

I agree, Siberian cold due to changed flows of different currents seems more likely as the end result due to climate change for the Nordics rather than increased temperatures.

Increasing temperatures now does not equal increased temperatures later, when the system has stabilized again.

I'm not saying it will happen, just that it seems more likely with what the current data seems to imply, my current information is from some pop culture article though, so I'm the first one to agree that that information might be wrong.

One reason climates won't simply shift is that the length of daytime and the changes in that during the year will stay the same.

Sweden will still be very dark during winter and those Mediterranean plants won't necessarily be able to deal with that.

I've seen videos of people in Canada building passive greenhouses to allow them to grow plants that typically require much warmer climates. Whether they grow and whether they taste good is a different question though....

Greenhouses are extremely successful here in Iceland.

Indeed. There is a reasonable argument to be made that Europe might get colder in the future. It really depends on the gulf stream. If that turns off, it could be the end of grape growing for all of Europe.

I've said it before, but I think the scientific climate community dropped the ball when talking to the public, focusing only on the average temperature.

Everyone thinks it's like getting a raise, you get a bit more heat each month. That's not how it's gonna go down.

I wouldn't laugh too much.

In 2016 Juneau, the capital city of Alaska, recorded zero measurable snowfall for the entire winter for the first time in recorded history [1].

Climate change impacts are already severe in the North. Here's what it used to look like in a "proper Alaska" winter. We walked across the lake near town to the Glacier. That lake doesn't freeze anymore [2]

[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/where-oh...

[2] http://theroadchoseme.com/mendenhall-glacier-juneau-alaska

How much was the parcel if you don't mind sharing? I've had similar thoughts regarding Miami near-floodplain real estate - buying land that might hypothetically become the "new coast" based on projections for sea levels over the next 20, 30 years.

Obviously a long shot in terms of ROI but I mean the apparent recent increase in hurricanes in those coastal areas in terms of both intensity and frequency is palpable...

I would avoid coastal communities. Wealthy beachfront owners will likely find a way to socialize their losses, either by getting taxpayers to fund coastal armoring or via direct bailouts. Alternatively there is the risk that property in those areas becomes uninsurable and by proxy unbankable. Hard to predict which way it goes, probably will depend on the individual community.

Probably better to buy cheap arable land somewhere in the north that is projected to get warmer and has access to lots of water.

> Wealthy beachfront owners will likely find a way to socialize their losses, either by getting taxpayers to fund coastal armoring or via direct bailouts. Alternatively there is the risk that property in those areas becomes uninsurable and by proxy unbankable.

This is not hard to predict because it has already happened for decades.

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

It is not just about wealth though, Florida is (or was) a swing state with a ton of votes for the president, and has only increased in political influence. Politically, it is going to near impossible to stop federal taxpayer funded bailouts for them.

The trouble with South Florida is that it's so flat. Any significant sea level rise will mean extensive flooding inland every time there's a major storm because the rainwater won't have anywhere to drain away.