Saturday, December 26, 2009

Happy After Christmas! Chicago makes No. 5 on list of 100 Places to Remember Before They Disappear

photograph: Jim Richardson/Getty

So much for warm holiday spirit. We just caught up with this slideshow from England's The Guardian depicting 16 of the 100 places the International Panel on Climate Change is betting won't be around a century from now. Bhutan, Caracas, Australia's Kakadu wetlands, and, Chicago?

"That's today weather, and now, the forecast for the 21st century:"
a gradual, dramatic increase in heatwaves and flooding due to global warming . . . an increase in hot summer days . . . unpredictable heavy rain and flooding . . . damage [to] Chicago's tourism industry.
Guess those $500 cases of pop at McCormick Place don't seem such a big deal now, do they?

The good news: Chicago's climate will be just like that of Texas and Alabama. They'll be a lot more good country western bars, our college football teams will win more games, and the Indiana Dunes will really come into its own. A Daley will still be mayor; she'll just be mangling the English language with monophthongized dipthongs.

See the entire slideshow here.

9 comments:

Brendan Crain said...

So...Chicago will cease to exist...because our weather will be like Houston's? o_O Am I missing something, or is that just a really blatant and poorly-thought-out attempt at making this list "edgy?"

Matt said...

I dont get why they single out Chicago. Assuming that would actually come to pass, then ever other city in America would be going through incredible temperature fluctuations too. If Chicago were as hot as Houston, then how hot would Houston be?!

FGFM said...

I was thinking that we might be OK due to the fact that we are several hundred feet above sea level, but you have to remember that Chicago is basically a marsh and there is a mighty big lake over there. Probably will be a boon for seawall contractors.

Brendan Crain said...

Hurricanes could start making it all the way up to Chicago eventually, but certainly not in a century. Even if they did, there would be flash flooding along the lakefront (which is mostly parkland) during a hurricane, but you wouldn't have a Katrina-style flooding event because, unlike New Orleans (on Lake Pontchartrain), Chicago isn't below Lake Michigan. But, you know, that terrifying Houston weather will destroy us all, aparently.

Anonymous said...

Would this be the same IPCC that was caught with it's pants down fixing the numbers on temp change and whos panel leader is a UN oil for food scam artist?

Anonymous said...

while i'm not necessarily a proponent of global warming, the thought that our weather would be more like Texas' isn't exactly unappealing! then people wouldn't have a reason to escape our horrible winters at least ...

Dennis McClendon said...

Ummmm, Chicago is 600 feet above sea level. I think if the water ever reaches the steps of the Parliament Building in Ontario, Canada will probably give permission to open the Chicago Locks.

Anonymous said...

A garbage theory based on repeatedly disproven, junk science.

pc said...

Hurricanes lose their energy really quickly over dry land, and we're much too far inland. Then again, Hazel still managed to sock Toronto 700 miles after landfall, and we're also 700 miles from the Chesapeake (but on a much less likely storm track).

BTW, "climategate" is a desperate hock of hooey sold by apologists who realize that even the oil companies have moved on from outright denialism. Global warming is happening now, and it's based on simple chemistry (CO2 retains heat! OMG, a quintillion pounds of it might warm things!), not "junk." Your grandchildren will be deeply ashamed, but by then it will be too late for them.