I've seen recommendations for locations near the Great Lakes. Upper peninsula of MI, for example. Plenty of water. A warming climate should actually make the winters there somewhat less harsh.

Which places have you found? I'm in Canada and figured most of the places are going to suffer more rain falling in the next decades.

Sea levels haven't changed at Martha's Vineyard. I'd recommend that. Obama moved there in his retirement.

Honestly there is no safe haven while humans over-consume continue to waste in the chase of excess. We have seen in the last few years all the supposed climate safe areas get hit hard.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/09/nx-s1-5137024/climate-haven-h...

Pro tip for people moving north; don't buy land in the valleys around Mt. Rainier. This type of flood (also known as a lahar) has occurred there many times. The mudflows reached the harbor of Tacoma in the past. [0] I expect we'll see at least one new one in our lifetime, as the glaciers have been greatly affected by rising temperatures.

[0] https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/mt-rainier-lahar-hazard-ma...

The same argument could have been made about wildfire deaths and damage through the early 2000s in the US.

It turns out that improved forecasting, warning systems, and well-established emergency response, rescue, and recovery systems, can all tamp down risk.

Looking at your article, the subhead reveals a split narrative: "Natural disasters may cost more money, but they claim far fewer lives than in decades past."

What's begun to occur with wildfires is that events are now exceeding the capability of even advanced modern technological societies to address them. Wildfires now regularly enter the urban core, not merely the urban fringe. That's something unheard of in the US from roughly the 1920s, and there wasn't a notable large-scale urban fire until the Oakland Hills firestorm of 1991. Even that was arguably at the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Contrast the Tea Fire (2008, Montecito & Santa Barbara, CA), the Tubbs Fire (2017, Santa Rosa and Sonoma, CA), Camp Fire (2018, Paradise, CA), Carr Fire (2018, Redding, CA), the August 2020 California lightning fires (2020, multiple locations, 3,500+ structures destroyed), the Marshall fire (2021, Marshall, Superior, and Louisvill, CO), the Mountain Fire (2024, Ventura, CA), the Hawaii wildfires (2023, Lahaina, HI), the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires (2025, Pasadena and Altadena CA amongst other locations), and the 2026 Spokane complex (2025, Spokane, WA, ~850 structures).

That's just within the US (an advanced modern technological society), omits wildfires not significantly impacting urban regions, and probably skips a few. There've also been unprecedented urban fires in Canada, Europe, and Australia within the past few decades after nearly a century of no such instances.

(Europe is an exception: for some reason there were numerous urban conflagrations in the period 1939--1945, e.g., Dresden and Hamburg, though climate doesn't seem directly implicated as I recall. Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other Japanese cities had a similar experience at the time.)

As more facts come out about the Nepal-Tibet glacial flood event of 2026, it's pretty clear that many casualties and damage were unavoidable at all once the event itself was triggered. Avoiding casualties would have required extensive evacuations of a nearly 100km stretch of the Trishuli River, possibly for weeks, with an affected population of over 1 million souls.

I've addressed this in a few recent HN comments: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49473419> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49473201> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49460081>

Yeah, the event primarily marked by receding glaciers probably has nothing to do with this glacier that weakened to the point of destroying a village.

This glacier probably melted many times in the past, especially in such a sudden and violent manner.

I'm sure this is in no way anomalous, nor is it something that could predictably result at some point from a warming planet.

I sympathize with the reaction to the hyperbole, but it's not a binary thing. Better to think in terms of marginal increases in occurrence rate, or in a single case marginal increase in progression of an impending event (glaciers were all gonna be gone in a few thousand years anyhow).

Still plenty of room to debate numbers.

Mt St Helens erupted in 1980. The landslide alone was 3.3 billion cubic yards, that traveled 15mi at speeds of up to 155mph, and buried 23 square miles to an average depth of 150ft, and up to 600ft, within 10 minutes.

The blast flattened 230 sq mi of forest in minutes.

540 million tons of ash fell in 9 hours, affecting 22,000 sq mi.

The mudflow (lahar) was this debris mixing with 170 million cubic yards of glacial ice and snow, moving at 80 mph.

People liked to make smart ass comments about people who took photos "and would soon be dead" - "they were miles away, they could have left". For a lot of them? No.

The sheer magnitude of these events is truly unimaginable, even if you "were there" (nearby).

And MSH was barely a 5 on the VEI 0-8 (roughly) logarithmic scale, though you can't map to death toll easily.

Pinatubo in 1991 was a high 6. Krakatoa too. Tambora is the largest we know, in 1815, VEI 7, and is estimated at eighty times more output than MSH, and triggered the "Year Without a Summer" globally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer) that pulled down average -global- temperatures by a full degree over the course of a year. It completely disrupted the monsoon season throughout Asia, leading to flash flooding events like this becoming a very regular occurrence.

I think some of these types of stats are the closest terrestrial things we have at the limits of human comprehensibility (probably only eclipsed by "interstellar distances").