Retirement Geography Trivia

[fpjeepy]

Looking for places to consider with very weird and strict requirements. I actually will consider how I like the place, much more than how well it fits the rubric, but with millions of cities in the world it helps to narrow it down a little. I find the weird rules fun and challenging, but maybe I'm a little strange

Requirements:

• Goldilocks Population: 700-70,000 people (I don't want to live by myself, but I prefer rural. Homestead of some sort.)
• Between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn
• Between 4000-6000ft of elevation (1200-1800m) (This in combination with 2. results in daily highs above 70F and nightly lows below 65F year-round. I love the idea of never paying for AC or heat and being comfortable)
• Within +/- 3hrs of Eastern Standard time zone (Being on the other side of the world would be tough, because of family and friends)
• Within ~35 miles (50 km) of the ocean (I like to fish. I've never lived more than 5 miles from the ocean. I don't need to be there every day, but it is comforting to know I can get there if I want to.)

Sorting those places that qualify by

• Low Crime
• Low Corruption
• Language: English < Spanish < Others
• Friendliness to Expats

Lastly, a list of places that you probably have never heard of that meet these requirements:

• Constanza, Dominican Republic
• Kenscoff, Haiti
• Coacoatzintla, Mexico
• Moscota, Mexico
• Los Teques, Venezuela
• Cartago, Costa Rica
• Calimita, Colombia
• San José Acatempa, Guatemala

[AMandM]

The combination of elevation and proximity to ocean is tough! Somewhere on the southern coast of Brazil, maybe?

[uniwelder]

Coacoatzintla is somewhat familiar to me. It’s a short distance north of Xalapa where my wife and I stayed for a week. She is Mexican, so when we visit her family, we usually try to see a new place each time. I really liked it there. Great temperature, but humidity is extremely high and there is a constant mist, called “chipi chipi”.

As a gringo, I had a good impression of the people. Taxi drivers didn’t overcharge and were appreciative of an extra tip, as opposed to the usual, which is to charge 2-3x the regular fare. It’s also one of the few places I didn’t see street dogs and everyone was walking their dogs on leashes. Compared to everywhere else I’ve been in Mexico, that was quite surprising.

Coatepec is a small town in the same area that has a prominent expat population that is focused on homesteading. We walked through the central market there, and I was surprised how many white people were selling there. You might want to look there.

[fpjeepy]

Coacoatzintla is somewhat familiar to me. It’s a short distance north of Xalapa where my wife and I stayed for a week. She is Mexican, so when we visit her family, we usually try to see a new place each time. I really liked it there. Great temperature, but humidity is extremely high and there is a constant mist, called “chipi chipi”.

As a gringo, I had a good impression of the people. Taxi drivers didn’t overcharge and were appreciative of an extra tip, as opposed to the usual, which is to charge 2-3x the regular fare. It’s also one of the few places I didn’t see street dogs and everyone was walking their dogs on leashes. Compared to everywhere else I’ve been in Mexico, that was quite surprising.

Coatepec is a small town in the same area that has a prominent expat population that is focused on homesteading. We walked through the central market there, and I was surprised how many white people were selling there. You might want to look there.

Coatepec is a little further from the coast. (39 vs 32 miles) But I'll definitely check it out. Thank you!

The combination of elevation and proximity to ocean is tough! Somewhere on the southern coast of Brazil, maybe?

I looked through the south coast of Brazil. Plenty of mountain peaks within the right elevation and distance to the coast, but not towns. The closest I found was Bom Jardim da Serra at 42 miles.

I use Floodmap.net  for elevation maps.

[2Cent]

For the climate you should also consider the ocean currents. Especially if you live close to the sea. If the ocean is carrying warm water from the equator, or cold water from the artics make a huge difference. It's actually best to live in a warm climate that is getting cold water or a cold climate that is getting warm water. This will make the seasonal swings less extreme and can give a year round moderate climate. It's why winters in eastern Canada are very harsh, while the UK is quite moderate. That would put Peru on the map, which has a lot of nice places, and a lot of coastal mountains if you still want them. From a bit of browsing Mancora seems like a dream place, so that will be my submission. ;-)

[uniwelder]

Coatepec is a little further from the coast. (39 vs 32 miles) But I'll definitely check it out. Thank you!

This is more of a technicality, depending on how you want to calculate distance.  They're both about the same.  From Google Maps, Coatepec is actually 6 miles less driving and you'll supposedly get there 10 minutes faster.  I'm not sure how much faith I have in that estimate, but its probably reasonable to say either location will take you 1.5-2 hours to reach the coast, depending on where you live in regard to the center of either of those towns.

edited to add--- I also want to mention a good friend of mine did a college summer abroad in Xalapa.  He loved it there.  Even if you don't want to live in Xalapa (a small city), Coatepec and Coacoatzintle are quite close and would have frequent buses between them.  I believe there are 7 small universities located in Xalapa, so there is an energetic young culture.

[2Cent]

Since this is the kind of search which is perfect for a computer I copied your post into chatGPT and this is what it came up with:
Based on your requirements, there are a few places that could potentially meet your criteria:

1. Boquete, Panama - Boquete is a small town located in the mountains of Panama, with a population of around 20,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 3,600ft (1100m). The daily highs are usually around 75-80F (24-27C) and the nightly lows are around 60-65F (15-18C). Boquete is about 2 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time and is located about 20 miles (32km) from the Pacific Ocean. It has a low crime rate and is a popular destination for expats.

2. Vilcabamba, Ecuador - Vilcabamba is a small town located in the mountains of southern Ecuador, with a population of around 5,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 5,000ft (1524m). The daily highs are usually around 75-80F (24-27C) and the nightly lows are around 50-55F (10-13C). Vilcabamba is about 1 hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time and is located about 30 miles (48km) from the Pacific Ocean. It has a low crime rate and is known for its friendly expat community.

3. Las Terrenas, Dominican Republic - Las Terrenas is a small town located on the northeastern coast of the Dominican Republic, with a population of around 13,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 50ft (15m). The daily highs are usually around 85-90F (29-32C) and the nightly lows are around 70-75F (21-24C). Las Terrenas is in the Atlantic Standard Time zone, which is 1 hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time. It is located right on the ocean and has a low crime rate. While Spanish is the primary language, many locals speak English as well, and there is a growing expat community.

[nessness]

Look at Ajijic, Mexico. It's a beautiful town with a great climate and a lot of American and Canadian ex-pats. It's further from the ocean than you want but it's right near Lake Chapala, Mexico's largest freshwater lake.

[fpjeepy]

For the climate you should also consider the ocean currents. Especially if you live close to the sea. If the ocean is carrying warm water from the equator, or cold water from the artics make a huge difference. It's actually best to live in a warm climate that is getting cold water or a cold climate that is getting warm water. This will make the seasonal swings less extreme and can give a year round moderate climate. It's why winters in eastern Canada are very harsh, while the UK is quite moderate. That would put Peru on the map, which has a lot of nice places, and a lot of coastal mountains if you still want them. From a bit of browsing Mancora seems like a dream place, so that will be my submission. ;-)

Agreed. There are a lot of other things to consider, but I still think the higher elevations have a nicer daily temperature fluctuation.

Below is a temperature map of Mancora and Constanza. At 8pm, Mancora has a temperature above 75 six months out of the year. Without AC I prefer it to be below 70, which is the case year-round in Constanza. Also, at least six months of the year Constanza has a daily high above 75. Small difference, but still noteworthy.

[fpjeepy]

Since this is the kind of search which is perfect for a computer I copied your post into chatGPT and this is what it came up with:
Based on your requirements, there are a few places that could potentially meet your criteria:

1. Boquete, Panama - Boquete is a small town located in the mountains of Panama, with a population of around 20,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 3,600ft (1100m). The daily highs are usually around 75-80F (24-27C) and the nightly lows are around 60-65F (15-18C). Boquete is about 2 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time and is located about 20 miles (32km) from the Pacific Ocean. It has a low crime rate and is a popular destination for expats.

2. Vilcabamba, Ecuador - Vilcabamba is a small town located in the mountains of southern Ecuador, with a population of around 5,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 5,000ft (1524m). The daily highs are usually around 75-80F (24-27C) and the nightly lows are around 50-55F (10-13C). Vilcabamba is about 1 hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time and is located about 30 miles (48km) from the Pacific Ocean. It has a low crime rate and is known for its friendly expat community.

3. Las Terrenas, Dominican Republic - Las Terrenas is a small town located on the northeastern coast of the Dominican Republic, with a population of around 13,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 50ft (15m). The daily highs are usually around 85-90F (29-32C) and the nightly lows are around 70-75F (21-24C). Las Terrenas is in the Atlantic Standard Time zone, which is 1 hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time. It is located right on the ocean and has a low crime rate. While Spanish is the primary language, many locals speak English as well, and there is a growing expat community.

#2 fit the description, #1 was very close, #3 no where close. You have to double-check ChatGPT. It likes to lie.

Additionally, I don't know that Panama and Ecuador are known for "low" crime rates. Lower than some areas, maybe.

Look at Ajijic, Mexico. It's a beautiful town with a great climate and a lot of American and Canadian ex-pats. It's further from the ocean than you want but it's right near Lake Chapala, Mexico's largest freshwater lake.

I just looked at it briefly on Google. Looks like a pretty neat area.

[joemandadman189]

In regards to these cities, have you visited any of them?

Mascota, jalisco, mexico is up in the mountains and about 2 hours drive from Puerto Vallarta, so may be 35 miles as the crow flies but not a quick trip.  Also that road is sketchy and narrow

I have been a passenger on about half of that road from PV through la Estancia, and will be there again in about two weeks for work. I will report back on my trip to the area nearby.

These areas are fairly isolated and rural.

My work had encountered some narco activity in the area

My first thought was the San Jose / Cartago area of costa rica - although i havent been there a friend said it was amazing, you have the beach, mountains, and rain forests all with in a few hours drive

[uniwelder]

Mascota, jalisco, mexico is up in the mountains and about 2 hours drive from Puerto Vallarta, so may be 35 miles as the crow flies but not a quick trip.  Also that road is sketchy and narrow

Regarding distance to the beach, it made me wonder if maybe OP has a helicopter?  Its the same with Coacoatzintla/Coatepec, as both are 35-40 miles straight line, but almost a 2 hour drive.

[fpjeepy]

In regards to these cities, have you visited any of them?

Mascota, jalisco, mexico is up in the mountains and about 2 hours drive from Puerto Vallarta, so may be 35 miles as the crow flies but not a quick trip.  Also that road is sketchy and narrow

I have been a passenger on about half of that road from PV through la Estancia, and will be there again in about two weeks for work. I will report back on my trip to the area nearby.

These areas are fairly isolated and rural.

My work had encountered some narco activity in the area

My first thought was the San Jose / Cartago area of costa rica - although i havent been there a friend said it was amazing, you have the beach, mountains, and rain forests all with in a few hours drive

I have not visited any of them. I was hoping to visit Constanza befor the end of the year, but we will see.

I don't know enough about the gang/drug activity. What's the best tactics to avoid becoming a victim?

I figured <35 miles was easier to measure that <2hr drive. But to your point a place that is 50 miles away and a 1 hour drive would be prefered to a place that was 5 miles away and a 3hr drive.

On that note, Pico Turquino is in the the Sierra Maestras of Cuba. It is 6490ft (1978m) and 3.6 miles from the coast, but it probably take 4-6hrs on a mule to get there. And there is no crime, because it's Cuba, but it's Cuba.

[GuitarStv]

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

[joemandadman189]

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

this is a really important criteria to consider, the area east of Puerto Vallarta is tropical / arid in that they get a 1+ meters or rain of rain per year but mostly in 3-5 months then almost nothing the rest of the year. The area has had several forest fires in the last few years.
also climate characteristics in general - the summer is brutally humid with high heat even at 5500 ft elevation

[GilesMM]

Your low corruption filter should rule out most of Latin America, in my experience. Maybe parts of the US as well, haha.

[fpjeepy]

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

It would be very easy to derail this discussion by letting it unravel into a climate change debate. I am not a climate change denier. I think the evidence is pretty solid, but it shows a 0.7C temperature rise from 1900 to now? If it accelerates at a rate faster than we have yet seen it will still be 2C temperature rise by 2300? That is significant, but will it cause apocalyptic conditions? I am skeptical of that. Will it be enough to stop the Atlantic deep water current? Maybe. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. Will it cause sea level rise, yes. Is 6 in (150mm) of sea level rise catastrophic? I would love to be on the side that predicts the right outcome, but betting on it being catastrophic doesn't look like the best bet to me.

Your low corruption filter should rule out most of Latin America, in my experience. Maybe parts of the US as well, haha.

Very good point, but then where?

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

this is a really important criteria to consider, the area east of Puerto Vallarta is tropical / arid in that they get a 1+ meters or rain of rain per year but mostly in 3-5 months then almost nothing the rest of the year. The area has had several forest fires in the last few years.
also climate characteristics in general - the summer is brutally humid with high heat even at 5500 ft elevation

Is that true? I'm going off https://weatherspark.com/y/3877/Average-Weather-in-Chiquilistl%C3%A1n-Mexico-Year-Round But I can't confirm any of the data. Chiquilistlán is 5600ft and I don't think I would say those temperatures or dew points are brutal. Jacksonville, FL for comparision...

[GuitarStv]

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

It would be very easy to derail this discussion by letting it unravel into a climate change debate. I am not a climate change denier. I think the evidence is pretty solid, but it shows a 0.7C temperature rise from 1900 to now?

That's not right:  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature.  Since 1880 we have warmed 2.52 degrees C.

If it accelerates at a rate faster than we have yet seen it will still be 2C temperature rise by 2300?

There is no 'if' at all.  Warming has been consistently accelerating and will continue to accelerate even if we completely stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere tomorrow.

That is significant, but will it cause apocalyptic conditions?  I am skeptical of that.

Climate change is responsible for the worst recorded forest fire season ever here in Canada, and predictions that things will continue to worsen (https://climateatlas.ca/forest-fires-and-climate-change).  This caused not only significant damage in the areas burning, but poisoned the air for people air tens of thousands of kilometers away.

What exactly is your definition of apocalyptic conditions?

Will it be enough to stop the Atlantic deep water current? Maybe. But I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Me neither.  The data says that it's a risk, but the odds are that it won't happen within the 21st century (https://nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w).

Will it cause sea level rise, yes. Is 6 in (150mm) of sea level rise catastrophic?

Sea level rise isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.  If water levels raise six inches (or 13 1/2 inches - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#:~:text=The%20former%20combined%20the%20projections,in%20a%20high%20emission%20scenario. - according to the high emission scenario that we currently appear to be following along based on our constantly increasing emissions) the water goes up.  But it also means that floods become worse.  Storms and hurricanes become worse.  Tsunamis become worse.  We're already seeing this in the impact of 8-9 inches (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level) of sea level rise since 1880.

Will it cause sea level rise, yes. Is 6 in (150mm) of sea level rise catastrophic? I would love to be on the side that predicts the right outcome, but betting on it being catastrophic doesn't look like the best bet to me.

You're free to do whatever you want of course.  But this website is very much about planning for the future.  Every metric we have right now is telling us that climate change is going to be a big part of that future.

[uniwelder]

To throw another climate change comment in here, take a few minutes to read this----- https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189253504/climate-change-migration-honduras

Its about how changing weather patterns is disrupting agriculture in Central America.  Since OP wants a homestead in a tropical location, this is very pertinent information.  Even if your farm is just a hobby, your neighbors are likely to depend financially on farming and if they become more restless, the outcome to you might not be favorable.  Infrastructure might get run down and see an increase in gang activity and drugs that 20 years prior was your dream retirement location.

edited to add--- a couple degrees in average temperature difference doesn't sound like much, but as described in the article, the most noticeable way it manifests is in erratic weather patterns and numerous extreme events.  This makes it especially difficult to farm when you're relying on rain without any other irrigation.

[fpjeepy]

I will give you the pleasure of one response then I will quit this discussion because it is divisive.

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

It would be very easy to derail this discussion by letting it unravel into a climate change debate. I am not a climate change denier. I think the evidence is pretty solid, but it shows a 0.7C temperature rise from 1900 to now?

That's not right:  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature.  Since 1880 we have warmed 2.52 degrees C.

I was wrong. According to the link that you sent "Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880"

I said 0.7C 1900 till now. I was eyeballing from a different source. According to your source 2023-1900=123 years 123/10=12.3 decades 12.3*0.08= 0.984C temperature rise.

I was closer than you were. And this is why people don't listen. If you lie about something in a discussion like this most people immediately stop listening to you.

If it accelerates at a rate faster than we have yet seen it will still be 2C temperature rise by 2300?

There is no 'if' at all.  Warming has been consistently accelerating and will continue to accelerate even if we completely stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere tomorrow.

Can I get a source for this conclusion? If the temperature is rising because greenhouse gasses are rising. Then why do they continue to not only rise but rise at an accelerating rate when greenhouse gases stop rising?

That is significant, but will it cause apocalyptic conditions?  I am skeptical of that.

Climate change is responsible for the worst recorded forest fire season ever here in Canada, and predictions that things will continue to worsen (https://climateatlas.ca/forest-fires-and-climate-change).  This caused not only significant damage in the areas burning, but poisoned the air for people air tens of thousands of kilometers away.

What exactly is your definition of apocalyptic conditions?

Have you seen Mad Max?

Will it be enough to stop the Atlantic deep water current? Maybe. But I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Me neither.  The data says that it's a risk, but the odds are that it won't happen within the 21st century (https://nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w).

Will it cause sea level rise, yes. Is 6 in (150mm) of sea level rise catastrophic?

Sea level rise isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.  If water levels raise six inches (or 13 1/2 inches - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#:~:text=The%20former%20combined%20the%20projections,in%20a%20high%20emission%20scenario. - according to the high emission scenario that we currently appear to be following along based on our constantly increasing emissions) the water goes up.  But it also means that floods become worse.  Storms and hurricanes become worse.  Tsunamis become worse.  We're already seeing this in the impact of 8-9 inches (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level) of sea level rise since 1880.

Yes, flooding will be six inches deeper... And storms and hurricanes are worst because of the extra six inches of flooding?

Tsunamis are created by earthquakes; explain that one to me?

Either you are mixing up the causality of different climate change effects or you are fearmongering.

[GuitarStv]

I will give you the pleasure of one response then I will quit this discussion because it is divisive.

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

It would be very easy to derail this discussion by letting it unravel into a climate change debate. I am not a climate change denier. I think the evidence is pretty solid, but it shows a 0.7C temperature rise from 1900 to now?

That's not right:  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature.  Since 1880 we have warmed 2.52 degrees C.

I was wrong. According to the link that you sent "Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880"

I said 0.7C 1900 till now. I was eyeballing from a different source. According to your source 2023-1900=123 years 123/10=12.3 decades 12.3*0.08= 0.984C temperature rise.

I was closer than you were. And this is why people don't listen. If you lie about something in a discussion like this most people immediately stop listening to you.

There was no intention to mislead (this is why I included the reference that I used).  I mixed up the .14 from degrees F and used it in the calculation for degrees C when running the number in my head - this was my mistake.

If it accelerates at a rate faster than we have yet seen it will still be 2C temperature rise by 2300?

There is no 'if' at all.  Warming has been consistently accelerating and will continue to accelerate even if we completely stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere tomorrow.

Can I get a source for this conclusion? If the temperature is rising because greenhouse gasses are rising. Then why do they continue to not only rise but rise at an accelerating rate when greenhouse gases stop rising?

Temperatures will continue to rise (committed warming) even if we stop all carbon emissions (something that we're not remotely close to doing).

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-is-committed-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00955-x
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y
https://www.ge.com/news/reports/stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-stop-climate-change

They will not rise at an accelerated rate absent continued emissions.  With the exception of a short downward blip due to covid, we have been accelerating global emissions very consistently every year and there is no real end in sight:

Will it be enough to stop the Atlantic deep water current? Maybe. But I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Me neither.  The data says that it's a risk, but the odds are that it won't happen within the 21st century (https://nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w).

Will it cause sea level rise, yes. Is 6 in (150mm) of sea level rise catastrophic?

Sea level rise isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.  If water levels raise six inches (or 13 1/2 inches - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#:~:text=The%20former%20combined%20the%20projections,in%20a%20high%20emission%20scenario. - according to the high emission scenario that we currently appear to be following along based on our constantly increasing emissions) the water goes up.  But it also means that floods become worse.  Storms and hurricanes become worse.  Tsunamis become worse.  We're already seeing this in the impact of 8-9 inches (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level) of sea level rise since 1880.

Yes, flooding will be six inches deeper... And storms and hurricanes are worst because of the extra six inches of flooding?

No, a sea level rise means that flooding will be much more significant.  It's not a matter of adding the sea level increase to floods, it increases how extreme unusual events like flooding become:

https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

If you're planning on retiring somewhere coastal, I'd figure this would be important information for you.

Tsunamis are created by earthquakes; explain that one to me?

The tsunamis will have more power (due to greater volume of water displaced) so will travel further and have greater impacts upon landfall.

[Metalcat]

Have you considered two locations?

It's much easier to find half of that list in two spots than to meet all conditions in one.

I have two homes for this very reason. My summer home is on the ocean, the summer heat is not at all intense, and it meets a ton of needs, but I don't have to be here for the brutal winters if I don't want to. Then I have my mainland home, which has access to infinitely more amenities.

It's much, much cheaper for me to have the two homes and travel between them than to try and find one place that would provide everything, or even most of the things that the two locations provide.

Especially for something like the ocean where many locations near the ocean are only seasonally nice. And for me, I'm fine with only having ocean access half the year. It's a hell of a lot more ocean access than I would have being within driving distance year round.

It would be heeps easier to find a mountain place and an ocean place rather than to find both AND make it infinitely easier to stay within a specific range of weather.

[fpjeepy]

Temperatures will continue to rise (committed warming) even if we stop all carbon emissions (something that we're not remotely close to doing).

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-is-committed-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00955-x
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y
https://www.ge.com/news/reports/stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-stop-climate-change

They will not rise at an accelerated rate absent continued emissions.  With the exception of a short downward blip due to covid, we have been accelerating global emissions very consistently every year and there is no real end in sight:

That looks like a constant rate of 500 million additional tons of emissions per year.

No, a sea level rise means that flooding will be much more significant.  It's not a matter of adding the sea level increase to floods, it increases how extreme unusual events like flooding become:

https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

If you're planning on retiring somewhere coastal, I'd figure this would be important information for you.

That's semantics. They say a minor flooding event is 0.55m above mean high tide. If sea level rises minor flooding even will happen more frequently because they didn't rise the mean high tide with the sea level rise.

If I'm wrong then tell me how. How does the sea level being 6in higher magically make storms more intense? Warmer water can make more intense storms, but that's not what they are saying.

The tsunamis will have more power (due to greater volume of water displaced) so will travel further and have greater impacts upon landfall.

 So the average depth of all the oceans is 12,000ft. And the tsunami wave that travels thousand of miles across the ocean is how much more destructive because of the extra 6in of depth?

Can we stop now?

[Gerard]

Have you considered two locations?

+1 on this. I basically did it when I was working (although I couldn't fine-tune when to be where).

And, of course, there's no law (except maybe Canadian medicare rules!) about how long you spend in each place. Maybe you'd only need to get away from your main location for six or seven weeks a year, and at that point it might make sense to own only one home, and be a return "short term" renter in the other.

[fpjeepy]

Have you considered two locations?

It's much easier to find half of that list in two spots than to meet all conditions in one.

I have two homes for this very reason. My summer home is on the ocean, the summer heat is not at all intense, and it meets a ton of needs, but I don't have to be here for the brutal winters if I don't want to. Then I have my mainland home, which has access to infinitely more amenities.

It's much, much cheaper for me to have the two homes and travel between them than to try and find one place that would provide everything, or even most of the things that the two locations provide.

Especially for something like the ocean where many locations near the ocean are only seasonally nice. And for me, I'm fine with only having ocean access half the year. It's a hell of a lot more ocean access than I would have being within driving distance year round.

It would be heeps easier to find a mountain place and an ocean place rather than to find both AND make it infinitely easier to stay within a specific range of weather.

I'm jealous of the snowbirds, but It's a waste of human resources to maintain two homes and transport yourself and belongings between the two.

It also makes it hard to maintain relationships with locals, unless they are traveling to and from the same places. Which is a situation that works for empty nest retirees but not normal people that have to work and raise kids.

My desires are different than yours. Driving an hour or two for a day of fishing would be fine for me. I do that regularly now. Having "Ocean access" is cool, but not as valuable to me.

I understand many locations near the ocean are only seasonal nice. But some are nice year-round what's wrong with considering those?

I understand it might be more difficult or unconventional. A lot of people just want what's easiest. There are cruise boats filled with them around the world. That's not me.

I want unique, authentic, maybe an opportunity to help those around me.

[GuitarStv]

Temperatures will continue to rise (committed warming) even if we stop all carbon emissions (something that we're not remotely close to doing).

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-is-committed-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00955-x
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y
https://www.ge.com/news/reports/stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-stop-climate-change

They will not rise at an accelerated rate absent continued emissions.  With the exception of a short downward blip due to covid, we have been accelerating global emissions very consistently every year and there is no real end in sight:

That looks like a constant rate of 500 million additional tons of emissions per year.

Yes, carbon emissions are accelerating by more than 500 million tons each year.  That's a lot.

No, a sea level rise means that flooding will be much more significant.  It's not a matter of adding the sea level increase to floods, it increases how extreme unusual events like flooding become:

https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

If you're planning on retiring somewhere coastal, I'd figure this would be important information for you.

That's semantics. They say a minor flooding event is 0.55m above mean high tide. If sea level rises minor flooding even will happen more frequently because they didn't rise the mean high tide with the sea level rise.

If I'm wrong then tell me how. How does the sea level being 6in higher magically make storms more intense? Warmer water can make more intense storms, but that's not what they are saying.

The '6 inch' estimation you're using is wrong.  Best current guess is about twice that right now - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3232/nasa-study-rising-sea-level-could-exceed-estimates-for-us-coasts/

From the Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States that you quoted in my last response:

By 2050, the expected relative sea level (RSL) will cause tide and storm surge heights to increase and will lead to a shift in U.S. coastal flood regimes, with major and moderate high tide flood events occurring as frequently as moderate and minor high tide flood events occur today. Without additional risk-reduction measures, U.S. coastal infrastructure, communities, and ecosystems will face significant consequences.

The tsunamis will have more power (due to greater volume of water displaced) so will travel further and have greater impacts upon landfall.

 So the average depth of all the oceans is 12,000ft. And the tsunami wave that travels thousand of miles across the ocean is how much more destructive because of the extra 6in of depth?

Again, we're talking closer to 30 cm - not 15.

A modest 0.5-m rise in sea level will double the tsunami hazard in Macau - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aat1180

Can we stop now?

Sure, it's your thread.

[fpjeepy]

Million is not spelled with a 'b'.

Yes, carbon emissions are accelerating by roughly 500 billion tons each year.  That's a lot.

500 Million tons a year. 0.5 Billion tons a year.  20 years = additional 10 Billion tons. That's what the chart shows.

Accelerated rate means increasing faster than a constant rate. That would mean 0.5 Billion extra this year, 1 Billion extra next year, 2 billion the year after that etc. This isn't doing that.

A modest 0.5-m rise in sea level will double the tsunami hazard in Macau - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aat1180

When I think of tsunamis I think about Tohoku tsunami in 2011. 9.3 m wave. Killed 20 thousand people.

 0.5 meter sea level rise causing 1.0m of flooding is not the same. We get Noreasters on Long Island sound that surge 1.0m above high tide. They are forgotten the next day. The article uses the term tsunami for click bait. Did you think the 0.5m sea level rise was gonna double the size of a tsunami wave?

[Metalcat]

Have you considered two locations?

It's much easier to find half of that list in two spots than to meet all conditions in one.

I have two homes for this very reason. My summer home is on the ocean, the summer heat is not at all intense, and it meets a ton of needs, but I don't have to be here for the brutal winters if I don't want to. Then I have my mainland home, which has access to infinitely more amenities.

It's much, much cheaper for me to have the two homes and travel between them than to try and find one place that would provide everything, or even most of the things that the two locations provide.

Especially for something like the ocean where many locations near the ocean are only seasonally nice. And for me, I'm fine with only having ocean access half the year. It's a hell of a lot more ocean access than I would have being within driving distance year round.

It would be heeps easier to find a mountain place and an ocean place rather than to find both AND make it infinitely easier to stay within a specific range of weather.

I'm jealous of the snowbirds, but It's a waste of human resources to maintain two homes and transport yourself and belongings between the two.

It also makes it hard to maintain relationships with locals, unless they are traveling to and from the same places. Which is a situation that works for empty nest retirees but not normal people that have to work and raise kids.

My desires are different than yours. Driving an hour or two for a day of fishing would be fine for me. I do that regularly now. Having "Ocean access" is cool, but not as valuable to me.

I understand many locations near the ocean are only seasonal nice. But some are nice year-round what's wrong with considering those?

I understand it might be more difficult or unconventional. A lot of people just want what's easiest. There are cruise boats filled with them around the world. That's not me.

I want unique, authentic, maybe an opportunity to help those around me.

Cool if it wouldn't work for you that's fine, I was just making a suggestion, but it's rude to make sweeping assumptions that I don't have an authentic and meaningful connection to both of my communities and that I don't have opportunities to help both.

No one said there was anything wrong with what you want I was literally just trying to help with a suggestion you may not have considered that would likely be cheaper and easier to find.

But you're making me regret trying to help.

I'll just get back to my inauthentic life I guess.

[fpjeepy]

I'm jealous of the snowbirds, but It's a waste of human resources to maintain two homes and transport yourself and belongings between the two.

It also makes it hard to maintain relationships with locals, unless they are traveling to and from the same places. Which is a situation that works for empty nest retirees but not normal people that have to work and raise kids.

My desires are different than yours. Driving an hour or two for a day of fishing would be fine for me. I do that regularly now. Having "Ocean access" is cool, but not as valuable to me.

I understand many locations near the ocean are only seasonal nice. But some are nice year-round what's wrong with considering those?

I understand it might be more difficult or unconventional. A lot of people just want what's easiest. There are cruise boats filled with them around the world. That's not me.

I want unique, authentic, maybe an opportunity to help those around me.

Cool if it wouldn't work for you that's fine, I was just making a suggestion, but it's rude to make sweeping assumptions that I don't have an authentic and meaningful connection to both of my communities and that I don't have opportunities to help both.

No one said there was anything wrong with what you want I was literally just trying to help with a suggestion you may not have considered that would likely be cheaper and easier to find.

But you're making me regret trying to help.

I'll just get back to my inauthentic life I guess.

My apologies. The idea of two locations is a very common practice for people who retire. I received your suggestion as condesending because it seemed rather obvious. Other things in my life had me in a less-than-great mood last evening and it was easy to lash out defensively.

I am INTP Meyers Brigg personality type. Excentric. I loathe normalcy or inauthenticity. My views are biased.

[GuitarStv]

When I think of tsunamis I think about Tohoku tsunami in 2011. 9.3 m wave. Killed 20 thousand people.

 0.5 meter sea level rise causing 1.0m of flooding is not the same. We get Noreasters on Long Island sound that surge 1.0m above high tide. They are forgotten the next day. The article uses the term tsunami for click bait. Did you think the 0.5m sea level rise was gonna double the size of a tsunami wave?

Click bait?

You asked for an explanation of how this could be and (by the comments returned) appear not to have read the study explaining precisely those things?  I don't think and didn't say that a .5 m rise in sea level will double the height of a tsunami.  The study provided shows pretty clearly that due to sea level rise tsunamis will have more power so will travel further and have significantly greater impacts (in the case of the study, roughly doubling the hazard).

We generated hazard curves at six representative locations (P1 to P6; these coastal locations are either directly exposed to the sea or sheltered) to compare the inundation depths with different sea-level conditions (Fig. 3), and we find that, with 0.5 and 1 m increased sea level, the inundation depths increase significantly, although the increased values vary across the six locations (table S1). For example, at location P1, the median inundation depth increases from 1 m at current sea level to 1.5 m at 0.5-m SLR and 1.8 m at 1-m SLR at the 1000-year return period. At location P6, the inundation depth of the 1000-year return period increases from 1.3 to 2.2 m and 2.8 m at these three sea levels (see table S1). It should be noted that the increase of inundation depth can exceed the increase of sea level. In some locations (for example, P3, P5, and P6), the inundation depths may be 0.2 to 0.5 m greater than the 0.5- and 1-m increased sea level. The underlying driver of this magnified flooding is the higher background water level (deeper water depth) from which tsunami wave can build upon. Similar SLR-induced amplification in flood potential is reported by previous studies [for example, (3)], which demonstrated that SLR results in storm tides with greater amplitudes and higher run-up due to depth and friction change.

[fpjeepy]

We generated hazard curves at six representative locations (P1 to P6; these coastal locations are either directly exposed to the sea or sheltered) to compare the inundation depths with different sea-level conditions (Fig. 3), and we find that, with 0.5 and 1 m increased sea level, the inundation depths increase significantly, although the increased values vary across the six locations (table S1). For example, at location P1, the median inundation depth increases from 1 m at current sea level to 1.5 m at 0.5-m SLR and 1.8 m at 1-m SLR at the 1000-year return period. At location P6, the inundation depth of the 1000-year return period increases from 1.3 to 2.2 m and 2.8 m at these three sea levels (see table S1). It should be noted that the increase of inundation depth can exceed the increase of sea level. In some locations (for example, P3, P5, and P6), the inundation depths may be 0.2 to 0.5 m greater than the 0.5- and 1-m increased sea level.

"In some locations (for example, P3, P5, and P6), the inundation depths may be 0.2 to 0.5 m greater than the 0.5- and 1-m increased sea level."

At P1 the inundation depth was the same and 0.2m less than the 0.5 and 1.0m SLR.

But the conclusion was hazard was doubled.

The study provided shows pretty clearly that due to sea level rise tsunamis will have more power so will travel further and have significantly greater impacts.

No it does not. I read the article. It shows one location can have some areas that have more flooding and some that will have less due to sea level rise. It is a function of the shape of the land/seafloor and the direction of the wave. This will not be the case for every location.

The power of a tsunami is in the 9.3m wave. Sea level rise will have no effect on this.

Flooding events associated with minor "tsunamis" will be more common with higher sea levels. That is obvious. These events don't kill 20,000 people.

[GuitarStv]

We generated hazard curves at six representative locations (P1 to P6; these coastal locations are either directly exposed to the sea or sheltered) to compare the inundation depths with different sea-level conditions (Fig. 3), and we find that, with 0.5 and 1 m increased sea level, the inundation depths increase significantly, although the increased values vary across the six locations (table S1). For example, at location P1, the median inundation depth increases from 1 m at current sea level to 1.5 m at 0.5-m SLR and 1.8 m at 1-m SLR at the 1000-year return period. At location P6, the inundation depth of the 1000-year return period increases from 1.3 to 2.2 m and 2.8 m at these three sea levels (see table S1). It should be noted that the increase of inundation depth can exceed the increase of sea level. In some locations (for example, P3, P5, and P6), the inundation depths may be 0.2 to 0.5 m greater than the 0.5- and 1-m increased sea level.

"In some locations (for example, P3, P5, and P6), the inundation depths may be 0.2 to 0.5 m greater than the 0.5- and 1-m increased sea level."

At P1 the inundation depth was the same and 0.2m less than the 0.5 and 1.0m SLR.

But the conclusion was hazard was doubled.

Yes, and the study goes on to explain exactly why that overall the hazard was doubled despite the variation.  Again, I would encourage you to read it fully to understand the reasoning for this.  But if you still don't like that study for some reason, maybe we could go with this one, which also shows a significant increase in impact and damage caused by tsunamis when sea levels rise:

This research used the SLR rate to project the impacts of SLR and tsunamis for 50, 100, 150 and 200 years. The SLR rates were also combined with three variations of tides, namely at lowest-low water level (LLWL), mean sea level (MSL), and highest-high water level (HHWL). One hundred twenty tsunami scenarios that included two land-use cover periods—2004 Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) and the 2029 LULC—were simulated. The latter is stipulated in the long-term city planning of Banda Aceh is to be implemented at the end of 2029. This research found that the impact of the tsunamis triggered by 8.2–8.6 magnitude earthquakes could be doubled if they are coupled with impacts of SLR.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420921000509?via%3Dihub

The study provided shows pretty clearly that due to sea level rise tsunamis will have more power so will travel further and have significantly greater impacts.

No it does not. I read the article. It shows one location can have some areas that have more flooding and some that will have less due to sea level rise. It is a function of the shape of the land/seafloor and the direction of the wave. This will not be the case for every location.

The power of a tsunami is in the 9.3m wave. Sea level rise will have no effect on this.

Flooding events associated with minor "tsunamis" will be more common with higher sea levels. That is obvious. These events don't kill 20,000 people.

If you want to talk about wave height instead of damage done on shore we can do that too.
 Evidence suggests that tsunamis will be greater height at the shore due to sea level rise:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27445-8


Tsunamis will cause more damage, they will be more deadly to human life, and they will have larger wave height at the shore due to sea level rise.  To me that seems pretty bad on all fronts.  And tsunamis are only a very small piece of all the things that will be going wrong due to climate change.  I'm not sure that sticking your head in the sand is the most logical approach to the issue.

[fpjeepy]

If you want to talk about wave height instead of damage done on shore we can do that too.
 Evidence suggests that tsunamis will be greater height at the shore due to sea level rise:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27445-8

That article is about flooding not waves.

Strong currents and inundation caused by MNTH (Maximum Nearshore Tsunami Height) of 0.27 m in 1960 and 0.41 m in 1964 caused ~$17 M and ~$149 M (amounts referenced in this paper are in 2019 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars) of damage in Los Angeles, respectively. In 2011, MNTH of 0.13 m created strong currents at the ports and disrupted operations.

You have formed your opinion of the matter and will not listen to anything that isn't in agreement with it. I don't need more arguments in my life.

[GuitarStv]

If you want to talk about wave height instead of damage done on shore we can do that too.
 Evidence suggests that tsunamis will be greater height at the shore due to sea level rise:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27445-8

That article is about flooding not waves.

Yes, the study covers the impacts of sea level rise on tsunamis and both the expected flooding as well as increased height of the waves.

Strong currents and inundation caused by MNTH (Maximum Nearshore Tsunami Height) of 0.27 m in 1960 and 0.41 m in 1964 caused ~$17 M and ~$149 M (amounts referenced in this paper are in 2019 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars) of damage in Los Angeles, respectively. In 2011, MNTH of 0.13 m created strong currents at the ports and disrupted operations.

You have formed your opinion of the matter and will not listen to anything that isn't in agreement with it. I don't need more arguments in my life.

Not sure what the random quote from the introduction about historical strong current tsunamis is supposed to get across?

I'm very willing to listen to disagreements.  When the disagreements don't seem to track with my understanding then I look up data to see which seems to be better supported.

[Villanelle]

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

Some version of this was my initial thought regarding the OP.  When climate is one of the main determining factors, it feels like a recipe for disasters as the climate for the last 50 years is unlikely to be the same as the climate for the next 20+.  So you are basing your decision on the past, which is unlikely to be the same as the future.

This is part of how I console myself about not wanting to afford to retire in my beloved San Diego.  One of the main draws is the, IMO, perfect weather.  But in the next decade or two, they will likely be facing semi-frequent hurricanes, more fires, and increasing heat, among other not-good things. 

Anyway, point is that basing your choice primarily on weather that is unlikely to actually be the weather you experience seems unwise.

[fpjeepy]

If you want to talk about wave height instead of damage done on shore we can do that too.
 Evidence suggests that tsunamis will be greater height at the shore due to sea level rise:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27445-8

That article is about flooding not waves.

Yes, the study covers the impacts of sea level rise on tsunamis and both the expected flooding as well as increased height of the waves.

Strong currents and inundation caused by MNTH (Maximum Nearshore Tsunami Height) of 0.27 m in 1960 and 0.41 m in 1964 caused ~$17 M and ~$149 M (amounts referenced in this paper are in 2019 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars) of damage in Los Angeles, respectively. In 2011, MNTH of 0.13 m created strong currents at the ports and disrupted operations.

You have formed your opinion of the matter and will not listen to anything that isn't in agreement with it. I don't need more arguments in my life.

Not sure what the random quote from the introduction about historical strong current tsunamis is supposed to get across?

I'm very willing to listen to disagreements.  When the disagreements don't seem to track with my understanding then I look up data to see which seems to be better supported.

The point is they are talking about "inundation" (Flooding.) Waves less than 0.5m (1.5ft) don't matter as much as the tsunami waves that most people think of when they hear the term "tsunami". Every winter there are 5-15 events (wind-built waves) that have wave heights of 4m or greater in southern California. Show me where in that article they talk about Tsumai waves larger than this. Show me where they talk about a 9.3m (31ft) wave that can kill 20 thousand people.

[YK-Phil]

If by Moscota you mean Mascota, I think this little town would meet your expectations. It's still a couple of hours by car from the Puerto Vallarta airport and beaches, but it is otherwise a very pleasant place to live. We were looking for a summer rental there a few months ago to escape the heat from the coast but couldn't find anything although we didn't go physically there and only did an online search.

[Metalcat]

I'm jealous of the snowbirds, but It's a waste of human resources to maintain two homes and transport yourself and belongings between the two.

It also makes it hard to maintain relationships with locals, unless they are traveling to and from the same places. Which is a situation that works for empty nest retirees but not normal people that have to work and raise kids.

My desires are different than yours. Driving an hour or two for a day of fishing would be fine for me. I do that regularly now. Having "Ocean access" is cool, but not as valuable to me.

I understand many locations near the ocean are only seasonal nice. But some are nice year-round what's wrong with considering those?

I understand it might be more difficult or unconventional. A lot of people just want what's easiest. There are cruise boats filled with them around the world. That's not me.

I want unique, authentic, maybe an opportunity to help those around me.

Cool if it wouldn't work for you that's fine, I was just making a suggestion, but it's rude to make sweeping assumptions that I don't have an authentic and meaningful connection to both of my communities and that I don't have opportunities to help both.

No one said there was anything wrong with what you want I was literally just trying to help with a suggestion you may not have considered that would likely be cheaper and easier to find.

But you're making me regret trying to help.

I'll just get back to my inauthentic life I guess.

My apologies. The idea of two locations is a very common practice for people who retire. I received your suggestion as condesending because it seemed rather obvious. Other things in my life had me in a less-than-great mood last evening and it was easy to lash out defensively.

I am INTP Meyers Brigg personality type. Excentric. I loathe normalcy or inauthenticity. My views are biased.

Well, FTR, my choice of locations are far from normal and my life is about as authentic and unusual as they come.

Also, I'm looking at Cuernavaca in the future. It wouldn't tick all of your boxes, but it would fit for a number of them.

[GuitarStv]

If you want to talk about wave height instead of damage done on shore we can do that too.
 Evidence suggests that tsunamis will be greater height at the shore due to sea level rise:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27445-8

That article is about flooding not waves.

Yes, the study covers the impacts of sea level rise on tsunamis and both the expected flooding as well as increased height of the waves.

Strong currents and inundation caused by MNTH (Maximum Nearshore Tsunami Height) of 0.27 m in 1960 and 0.41 m in 1964 caused ~$17 M and ~$149 M (amounts referenced in this paper are in 2019 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars) of damage in Los Angeles, respectively. In 2011, MNTH of 0.13 m created strong currents at the ports and disrupted operations.

You have formed your opinion of the matter and will not listen to anything that isn't in agreement with it. I don't need more arguments in my life.

Not sure what the random quote from the introduction about historical strong current tsunamis is supposed to get across?

I'm very willing to listen to disagreements.  When the disagreements don't seem to track with my understanding then I look up data to see which seems to be better supported.

The point is they are talking about "inundation" (Flooding.) Waves less than 0.5m (1.5ft) don't matter as much as the tsunami waves that most people think of when they hear the term "tsunami". Every winter there are 5-15 events (wind-built waves) that have wave heights of 4m or greater in southern California. Show me where in that article they talk about Tsumai waves larger than this. Show me where they talk about a 9.3m (31ft) wave that can kill 20 thousand people.

So you don't care about the dangers, costs, or hazards of all tsunami . . . just the ones that are 31 ft tall and kill 20,000 people?  Why the focus on the rarest of scenarios rather than the ones much more likely to impact your retirement?  I don't quite get your reasoning.

[uniwelder]

So you don't care about the dangers, costs, or hazards of all tsunami . . . just the ones that are 31 ft tall and kill 20,000 people?  Why the focus on the rarest of scenarios rather than the ones much more likely to impact your retirement?  I don't quite get your reasoning.

OP is looking for places to live that are in the mountains, 4-6 thousand feet above sea level, but wants to be a reasonable distance to the coast.

[Luke Warm]

Since this is the kind of search which is perfect for a computer I copied your post into chatGPT and this is what it came up with:
Based on your requirements, there are a few places that could potentially meet your criteria:

1. Boquete, Panama - Boquete is a small town located in the mountains of Panama, with a population of around 20,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 3,600ft (1100m). The daily highs are usually around 75-80F (24-27C) and the nightly lows are around 60-65F (15-18C). Boquete is about 2 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time and is located about 20 miles (32km) from the Pacific Ocean. It has a low crime rate and is a popular destination for expats.

2. Vilcabamba, Ecuador - Vilcabamba is a small town located in the mountains of southern Ecuador, with a population of around 5,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 5,000ft (1524m). The daily highs are usually around 75-80F (24-27C) and the nightly lows are around 50-55F (10-13C). Vilcabamba is about 1 hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time and is located about 30 miles (48km) from the Pacific Ocean. It has a low crime rate and is known for its friendly expat community.

3. Las Terrenas, Dominican Republic - Las Terrenas is a small town located on the northeastern coast of the Dominican Republic, with a population of around 13,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 50ft (15m). The daily highs are usually around 85-90F (29-32C) and the nightly lows are around 70-75F (21-24C). Las Terrenas is in the Atlantic Standard Time zone, which is 1 hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time. It is located right on the ocean and has a low crime rate. While Spanish is the primary language, many locals speak English as well, and there is a growing expat community.

We've been to Boquete, albeit quite a while ago. It was a beautiful little town.

[jrhampt]

I live in a coastal town with a home abutting wetlands and I assure you that I am not concerned about tsunamis.  I am, however, concerned about the storm surge + already saturated ground + full moon + high tides combo which does reach noticeably higher highs now than it used to, as I can now watch the tides come and go in my backyard at certain phases of the moon during wetter parts of the year.  The water table keeps creeping up, and I'm probably not going to die in a flood, but the septic systems in my town may no longer be viable at some point in the future, certain roads are regularly underwater at full moons, basements flood, property gets damaged etc.  These things do need to be planned for.  I need to consider the potential cost of rebuilding/lifting my home to flood code, altering the drainage system around my property, rising flood insurance/home insurance costs, etc. when planning for retirement. (This past weekend my basement was flooded AND the skies were full of smoke from Canada so we had both ends of the apocalypse).

I live on the coast and I am a reasonable driving distance to mountains, but the reverse scenario the OP is planning may be the better call...except that VT (mountains) has also had horrible flooding in the past few years, so...I do feel like all bets are off wrt climate in the next 50 years.

Anyhoo, in response to the OPs question, I spent a summer in Monteverde, Costa Rica one year (small town, nice climate but definite rainy season) and enjoyed being in the mountains/cloud forest.  I was theoretically close to the coast, too, but with the road conditions it did take quite a while to get there.  That was about 20 years ago, so maybe the roads are better now?

[joemandadman189]

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

this is a really important criteria to consider, the area east of Puerto Vallarta is tropical / arid in that they get a 1+ meters or rain of rain per year but mostly in 3-5 months then almost nothing the rest of the year. The area has had several forest fires in the last few years.
also climate characteristics in general - the summer is brutally humid with high heat even at 5500 ft elevation

Is that true? I'm going off https://weatherspark.com/y/3877/Average-Weather-in-Chiquilistl%C3%A1n-Mexico-Year-Round But I can't confirm any of the data. Chiquilistlán is 5600ft and I don't think I would say those temperatures or dew points are brutal. Jacksonville, FL for comparision...

For the areas we were discussing, yes it is true, we have had a folks on the ground to confirm summer conditions, Mexico has weather station data to confirm precipitation data and i have seen the burn scars.

Chiquilistlán is hundreds of miles from the coast and i have no experience there, so i cant comment on the weather in that location - but i don't think it fits your close to the coast criteria

I love questions like these - what criteria does one select to determine their "ideal place" i often do this for random criteria

[fpjeepy]

If by Moscota you mean Mascota, I think this little town would meet your expectations. It's still a couple of hours by car from the Puerto Vallarta airport and beaches, but it is otherwise a very pleasant place to live. We were looking for a summer rental there a few months ago to escape the heat from the coast but couldn't find anything although we didn't go physically there and only did an online search.

Yes, Mascota. Thank you! Some cool information!

Since this is the kind of search which is perfect for a computer I copied your post into chatGPT and this is what it came up with:
Based on your requirements, there are a few places that could potentially meet your criteria:

1. Boquete, Panama - Boquete is a small town located in the mountains of Panama, with a population of around 20,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 3,600ft (1100m). The daily highs are usually around 75-80F (24-27C) and the nightly lows are around 60-65F (15-18C). Boquete is about 2 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time and is located about 20 miles (32km) from the Pacific Ocean. It has a low crime rate and is a popular destination for expats.

2. Vilcabamba, Ecuador - Vilcabamba is a small town located in the mountains of southern Ecuador, with a population of around 5,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 5,000ft (1524m). The daily highs are usually around 75-80F (24-27C) and the nightly lows are around 50-55F (10-13C). Vilcabamba is about 1 hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time and is located about 30 miles (48km) from the Pacific Ocean. It has a low crime rate and is known for its friendly expat community.

3. Las Terrenas, Dominican Republic - Las Terrenas is a small town located on the northeastern coast of the Dominican Republic, with a population of around 13,000 people. It is situated between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and has an elevation of around 50ft (15m). The daily highs are usually around 85-90F (29-32C) and the nightly lows are around 70-75F (21-24C). Las Terrenas is in the Atlantic Standard Time zone, which is 1 hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time. It is located right on the ocean and has a low crime rate. While Spanish is the primary language, many locals speak English as well, and there is a growing expat community.

We've been to Boquete, albeit quite a while ago. It was a beautiful little town.

Cool. Thank you!

Very important to consider the impact climate change will have on any area you're moving to.  That includes disaster response by governments, impacts of changing ocean currents, rising water levels, forest fires, quality and robustness of construction of buildings, etc.  There are no brakes on this train, and it's happening within our lives.

this is a really important criteria to consider, the area east of Puerto Vallarta is tropical / arid in that they get a 1+ meters or rain of rain per year but mostly in 3-5 months then almost nothing the rest of the year. The area has had several forest fires in the last few years.
also climate characteristics in general - the summer is brutally humid with high heat even at 5500 ft elevation

Is that true? I'm going off https://weatherspark.com/y/3877/Average-Weather-in-Chiquilistl%C3%A1n-Mexico-Year-Round But I can't confirm any of the data. Chiquilistlán is 5600ft and I don't think I would say those temperatures or dew points are brutal. Jacksonville, FL for comparision...

For the areas we were discussing, yes it is true, we have had a folks on the ground to confirm summer conditions, Mexico has weather station data to confirm precipitation data and i have seen the burn scars.

Chiquilistlán is hundreds of miles from the coast and i have no experience there, so i cant comment on the weather in that location - but i don't think it fits your close to the coast criteria

I love questions like these - what criteria does one select to determine their "ideal place" i often do this for random criteria

Chiquilistlán is 74.6 miles from the coast. It was the closest place to Puerto Vallarta that was around 5500ft that I could get climate data for.

Mascota the place I selected is 29.4 miles from the coast and 4060ft in elevation.

https://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm
https://www.floodmap.net/
https://weatherspark.com/