Chicago braces for a warm future... (Time: 2013, quality of life, living in)

[Bluefox]

I apologize in advance for the fact that this NY Times article is more than two years old, but when I randomly stumbled across it today I was just really shocked, and I think it is as every bit as relevant in 2013 as it was in 2011. At first I thought I was reading something from The Onion, but that's very much not the case.

Apparently, Chicago is leading the way in preparing its infrastructure for climate change... here are a few quotes I found to be exceptionally thought provoking.

Climate scientists have told city planners that based on current trends, Chicago will feel more like Baton Rouge than a Northern metropolis before the end of this century.

If world carbon emissions continued apace, the scientists said, Chicago would have summers like the Deep South, with as many as 72 days over 90 degrees before the end of the century. For most of the 20th century, the city averaged fewer than 15.

By 2070, Chicago could expect 35 percent more precipitation in winter and spring, but 20 percent less in summer and fall. By then, the conditions would have changed enough to make the area’s plant hardiness zone akin to Birmingham, Ala.

Chicago spends over $10 million a year planting roughly 2,200 trees. From 1991 to 2008, the city added so many that officials estimate tree cover increased to 17.6 percent from 11 percent. The goal is to exceed 23 percent this decade.
The problem is that for trees to reach their expected lifespan — up to 90 years — they have to be able to endure hotter conditions. Chicago has already changed from one growing zone to another in the last 30 years, and it expects to change several times again by 2070.

The white oak, the state tree of Illinois, has been banned from city planting lists, and swamp oaks and sweet gum trees from the South have been given new priority.

Off came the ash trees that account for 17 percent of Chicago tree cover, or more than any other tree. Gone, too, are the enormous Norway maples, which provide the most amount of shade.
A warming climate will make them more susceptible to plagues like emerald ash disease. Already white oak, the state tree of Illinois, is on the decline and, like several species of conifer, is expected to be extinct from the region within decades

(emphases added).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/sc...anted=all&_r=0

And here is the website of the Chicago Climate Action Plan (and I checked the tree lists - it corroborates the information in the article):

City of Chicago Climate Action

I'd just like to hear some opinions on this. Excessive paranoia, or responsible planning? Chicago has always been cutting edge with respect to urban planning and history has shown Chicago has demonstrated a great deal of foresight, which I think in many ways has resulted in Chicago being one of the most well-planned cities in the nation. So the fact that the powers that be are taking this issue so seriously actually makes me more likely to take it seriously as well. As far as I know most other major cities are not really taking these kinds of pragmatic steps to address the issue of climate change on a municipal level.

My next question is, as Chicagoans, could you tolerate living in weather similar to Baton Rouge or Birmingham, if that becomes reality within our lifetimes? Chicago gets a bad rap for having nasty winters, but I know a lot enjoy the winters, having four seasons, etc. So would you stick around, or pack your bags and move North?

And of course, feel free to address any and all other aspects of the article you feel are relevant to the topic.

Caveat: I hope this discussion will focus on Chicago and not on the broader politics of climate change. I'd really hate to have my thread end up in Politics & Other Controversies.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

My next question is, as Chicagoans, could you tolerate living in weather similar to Baton Rouge or Birmingham, if that becomes reality within our lifetimes?

No. I'd have to move.

Fortunately, I'm already past 50 years of age, so maybe I won't live to see all the climate changes the younger folks will.

[Tex?Il?]

If you want to know more about climate change its best to read the dry, boring stuff on it. Not the articles from popular newspapers and magazines

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

If you want to know more about climate change its best to read the dry, boring stuff on it. Not the articles from popular newspapers and magazines

Yeah, I've read a good amount on climate change, including lots of dry and boring stuff, but what was interesting about this article wasn't climate change per se, but the steps the city of Chicago is taking in response to the information presented to them, which implies the city is taking the issue very seriously. And of course it provokes some interesting hypothetical questions.

[nyyfanatic85]

Chicago is overreacting on this one. We have had, currently have, and will always have climate change. Earth's temps have been flat for the past 15 years, and I find it funny that had Chicago followed the advice of the world's leading climate scientists in the 70s (when global cooling was the rage), the city would now be inundated with mature Rocky Mountain Jumper trees.

[rubbersoul89]

Originally Posted by nyyfanatic85

Chicago is overreacting on this one. We have had, currently have, and will always have climate change. Earth's temps have been flat for the past 15 years, and I find it funny that had Chicago followed the advice of the world's leading climate scientists in the 70s (when global cooling was the rage), the city would now be inundated with mature Rocky Mountain Jumper trees.

you do realize that global cooling was never the rage among the scientific community, right?

even in the 70's, the notion of global warming was far more common among climate scientists.

[MSchemist80]

If you really want some hystrics on climate change read about the great dying the mass extinction event that marked the end of the permian period 250 million years ago. It was marked by extreme global warming caused by volcanism and the release of methane trapped in the sea floor and led to the extinction of 95% of all life on earth.

Permian

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by nyyfanatic85

Chicago is overreacting on this one. We have had, currently have, and will always have climate change. Earth's temps have been flat for the past 15 years, and I find it funny that had Chicago followed the advice of the world's leading climate scientists in the 70s (when global cooling was the rage), the city would now be inundated with mature Rocky Mountain Jumper trees.

this is all wrong.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Aleking

this is all wrong.

Got any citations at all for that?

[Chicago60614]

The article is way wrong on the number of trees planted, it's in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands (not 2,200) - and climate change has nothing to do with it. They did it to reduce the heat island effect and just because trees are good for a city and the impact they have on quality of life. Chicago isn't really on any forefront of climate change "emergency action".

They changed the trees chosen because of disease of the ash trees, cost, size of tree, water consumption and growth time. Many faster growing options were chosen, but not because of climate.

The article isn't accurate anyway, Chicago won't see a climate like Baton Rouge. Nearly every study out the past few years including many many from former whistle blowers on climate change says they realize they way overreacted.

The climate is slowly warming, but it's not expected to be some rapid rise.