Slashdot Mirror


Sea Level Rise Already Causing Billions in Home Value To Disappear (axios.com)

Sea level rise may seem like a far-off threat, but a growing number of new studies, including one out this week, shows that real estate markets have already started responding to increased flooding risks by reducing prices of vulnerable homes. From a report: According to a new report by the nonprofit First Street Foundation, housing values in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut dropped $6.7 billion from 2005 to 2017 due to flooding related to sea level rise. Combined with their prior analysis of 5 southeastern coastal states with $7.4 billion in lost home value, the total loss in 8 states since 2005 has been $14.1 billion. A recent slew of studies show how the housing market is responding to the increasing risk of coastal flooding -- with billions in value disappearing as investors wake up to the systemic risk.

280 comments

  1. Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is not waterfront property today, will be in the future. If I had lots of money I'd be buying it up now to resell later as increased value waterfront property.

    1. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not see Waterworld with Kevin Costner? It ALL winds up underwater.

    2. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Q-Hack! · · Score: 2

      It ALL winds up underwater.

      Even the IPCC doesn't make this claim.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    3. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by quenda · · Score: 2

      WRONG movie reference.

      Have you not heard of "Superman" where Lex Luthor has a plot to split the San Andres fault, and make a fortune on desert land becoming ocean-front?

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

    4. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Did you not see Waterworld with Kevin Costner? It ALL winds up underwater.

      If every bit of land-based ice melted, the oceans would rise about 160 ft.

    5. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by geggam · · Score: 1

      Because the highest mountain is only 160 ft above sea level ?

      *squint*

    6. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ignores the wreckage of former buildings that will be sitting in the water in front of your new waterfront property.

    7. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meaning that if that were to occur, the lowest level in Missouri (230 feet above sea level) wouldn't be flooded.

    8. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Meaning that if that were to occur, the lowest level in Missouri (230 feet above sea level) wouldn't be flooded.

      By seawater.
      Mississippi River flooding worse now than any time in past 500 years

    9. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the highest mountain is only 160 ft above sea level ?

      *squint*

      Because Hollywood people know shit about geography. Yet we trust them to inform us on the fine points of nuclear physics.

    10. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If every bit of land-based ice melted, the oceans would rise about 160 ft.

      I think that number is only for all of Antarctica. The number I've seen most often and what I got when I calculated it myself is more like 210 feet.

      Greenland has about 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice. Antarctica has about 26,500,000 cubic kilometers of ice. I'm going to ignore the rest of the ice because it's practically at rounding error levels. So the two of them together add up to 29,350,000 km^3 of ice. The surface area of the worlds oceans is about 361,000,000 km^2.

      So 29,350,000 km^3 divided by 360,000,000 km^2 equals 0.081527 km or about 267 feet. Of course the ocean spreads out as it rises so you have to take that into account so that's how they get 210 feet.

      Also that doesn't take into account sea level rise from thermal expansion. That is currently causing about 1/3 of the sea level rise we see.

    11. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by tacokill · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also that doesn't take into account sea level rise from thermal expansion. That is currently causing about 1/3 of the sea level rise we see.
      Uhh, no. Thermal expansion of SEAWATER does not cause a 33% increase in volume. Unless you are using some odd definition of "thermal expansion". Source: I sell pressure relief valves used for thermal expansion.

      Thermal expansion of water/seawater causes a very small increase in volume. Certainly there are things that can cause a large increase in volume (like turning that water into steam) but that is not the case - at all - for thermal expansion. Your assertion is drastically incorrect.

    12. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Because Hollywood people know shit about everything.

      Fixed that for you.

      I can't count the number of times I've seen incredibly stupid things like a train sliding on the ground for almost half a kilometer as if the ground was a slippery surface, how a man could survive an airborne trip inside a fridge caused by a nuclear explosion and somehow land intact because the fridge "protected him", etc.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    13. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He said "1/3 of the sea level rise". If the sea level rised 3cm, then 1cm would be caused by thermal expansion of the whole sea.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      If every bit of land-based ice melted, the oceans would rise about 160 ft.

      I think that number is only for all of Antarctica. The number I've seen most often and what I got when I calculated it myself is more like 210 feet.

      Greenland has about 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice. Antarctica has about 26,500,000 cubic kilometers of ice. I'm going to ignore the rest of the ice because it's practically at rounding error levels. So the two of them together add up to 29,350,000 km^3 of ice. The surface area of the worlds oceans is about 361,000,000 km^2.

      So 29,350,000 km^3 divided by 360,000,000 km^2 equals 0.081527 km or about 267 feet. Of course the ocean spreads out as it rises so you have to take that into account so that's how they get 210 feet.

      Also that doesn't take into account sea level rise from thermal expansion. That is currently causing about 1/3 of the sea level rise we see.

      How much of that ice is on land and how much is already floating? If ice floating in the ocean melts it won't cause the sea level to rise. It could have other terrible consequences (messing with currents, for example), but not rising sea level. One cubic km of ice melts to what volume of water?

      I also wish to state that not all water front property loss is caused by rising sea levels. My island of Oahu is sinking by about 1 cm per year. Our coral is mostly dead so the elevation of beaches and reefs are not increasing. Ocean currents carry away sand from the beaches. Over the space of 30+ years I've seen almost 8 feet of beach width disappear.

    15. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      Because the highest mountain is only 160 ft above sea level ?

      *squint*

      Because Hollywood people know shit about geography.

      As opposed to religious people?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    16. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      What DontBeAMoran said. If the current rate of SLR is 3 mm/year then 1 mm of that is from thermal expansion and most of the rest is from glacial ice melting.

    17. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      How much of that ice is on land and how much is already floating?

      The numbers I quoted were for the volume of the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet which are both sitting on land. Admittedly a small portion of each is grounded below sea level but it's a relatively small percentage of the total. One cubic km of ice will melt to a slightly smaller volume of water but again it's a relatively small percentage. I was just trying to get a ballpark figure.

    18. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      The current sea level rise is due to three factors, each causing about one-third of the rise: thermal expansion, melting ice (including land glaciers), and the emptying of aquifers (something I hadn't even considered).

      As more ice melts, that will be the only thing that really matters

    19. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      That is true. Also in the equation you have to subtract any water that gets stored behind dams.

    20. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      that is, if there's someone left with enough money to buy it :p besides, this is clearly fake news by zee russians, global warming is a hoax !

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    21. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      How much of that ice is on land and how much is already floating?

      The numbers I quoted were for the volume of the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet which are both sitting on land. Admittedly a small portion of each is grounded below sea level but it's a relatively small percentage of the total. One cubic km of ice will melt to a slightly smaller volume of water but again it's a relatively small percentage. I was just trying to get a ballpark figure.

      I found one source that says that "in general, a given volume of liquid water at room temperature will increase in volume by about 9.05% after freezing.". 9% does not seem like "a relatively small percentage" so your calculations are over inflated.

    22. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You are correct, the density of ice is about 9% less than liquid water. So adjusting my calculation I multiply the total volume of ice by 0.91 which gives 26708500 km^3 of water when the ice is melted.. Dividing that by the area of 361,000,000 km^2 gives 0.73985 km which is about 243 feet of sea level rise if all of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica melted. Thanks for making my calculation more rigorous.

    23. Re:Yes, but other property is increasing in value. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      What is not waterfront property today, will be in the future. If I had lots of money I'd be buying it up now to resell later as increased value waterfront property.

      Otisburg?

  2. By The Same Token by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    My oceanside property in Colorado should be doing great in a couple of decades!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is, if the chinese don't buy it all up on the cheap before then.

    2. Re:By The Same Token by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The way China is going these days, what with their new self-proclaimed Emperor and all, they'll just move in, make artificial islands off the coast, and declare it 'part of Chinese territory' and shoot at anyone who disagrees with them.

    3. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're a native American, you have ZERO RIGHT to say SHIT about immigrants, because one way or another YOUR ancestors were immigrants. So unless you're DNA says you're part of one of the Tribes here, you should GTFO and go back where you came from, you filthy foreign leech.

    4. Re: By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Native Americans came from Russia, idiot

    5. Re: By The Same Token by reanjr · · Score: 1

      And Russians came from Africa. So what?

    6. Re: By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they have big dicks

    7. Re:By The Same Token by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're born here, you are native.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re: By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol i teabag putin on the reg, he flosses with my pubes FYI

    9. Re: By The Same Token by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Africans came from Russia. I saw it on Russia Today, so it has to be true.

    10. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're undocumented. Then you're scum.

    11. Re: By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia didn't exist yet. /woosh

    12. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way China is going these days, what with their new self-proclaimed Emperor and all, they'll just move in, make artificial islands off the coast, and declare it 'part of Chinese territory' and shoot at anyone who disagrees with them.

      .

      That's ok, we have SSBNs for such problems. Believe me, the US military is quite capable of turning every living Chinese person into
      a spot on the sidewalk.

    13. Re:By The Same Token by jwhyche · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny. Lots of people are disagreeing with them but I can't find where they are shooting at anyone.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    14. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bite me, Sergei. Your Russian troll farm has been exposed.

    15. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're a native American, you have ZERO RIGHT to say SHIT about immigrants, because one way or another YOUR ancestors were immigrants. So unless you're DNA says you're part of one of the Tribes here, you should GTFO and go back where you came from, you filthy foreign leech.

      Learn-to-read. The AC said "migrants" not "immigrants".

    16. Re:By The Same Token by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2

      Oh, fuck you. Everyone EVERYWHERE in the world is sitting on land that someone stole from someone else at some point in history. Nobody is living somewhere their family or clan has owned since the beginning of history.

      Period.

      Get over this "stolen land" shit.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    17. Re:By The Same Token by Dasher42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Quite frankly, no. Borders shift here and there, that's one thing. Wiping out a whole continent-full of people, even driving the buffalo to near extinction for the simple purpose of eliminating those they depend on, that's something Hitler literally thought was inspiring. The USA is a state founded on the largest scale of genocide in history. If you can't read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and deal with what that looks like, that's just cowardice.

    18. Re:By The Same Token by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Well, we've certainly no shortage of Internet Tough Guys...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re: By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another example of Russia meddling in American affairs.

    20. Re: By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin does not need to floss, He is the almighty Russian God which Plaque and other oral diseases like liberals run from. The so called "Boogeyman in the closet"

    21. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      im 1/65535 Navajoe Ingin and I say To hell with all you crackers, me and my niggas gonna roll up in tis bitch and bust a cap.

    22. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you sleep at night with all that guilt?

    23. Re:By The Same Token by Teun · · Score: 1

      Exact the reason why Trump does not support lowering the CO2 output of the USofA (America First!).
      With a few feet of sea level rise Xi will soon find out his new islands will turn back to being reefs.
      Too bad the same will happen to Trump's beloved New York and a couple of his other sea side properties :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    24. Re: By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it when Americans get all huffy and puffy about conquering and might and war is war. The only thing that worked hard was the smallpox all of our dumb filthy ancestors survived just long enough to bring it here. Nothing else matters when you're talking about this subject, without smallpox the US we know may well have never come to be. So pipe down.

    25. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA is a state founded on the largest scale of genocide in history.

      According to the first source I found, since the USA was founded, it's estimated that between 100 to 500k natives were killed.

      The Holocaust killed between 5 and 6 million Jews (and up to 17 million total with war crimes, and 20 million Russians in battle), the Holodomor killed between 1.8 and 7.5 million Ukrainians, and the Khymer Rouge wiped out between 1.3 and 3 million. This doesn't include other mass killings throughout history that aren't considered genocides, like the Great Leap Forward (15-55 million), or the Japanese war crimes during WWII (3-14 million).

      And these are all "single" events that lasted less than a decade and are orders of magnitude worse than a few centuries of killing native Americans. And keep in mind that many native tribes fought (it was a war) and committed their own crimes, it's not as if they were a bunch of pacifists that never fought back or instigated their own attacks on innocents.

      As a society we really have to get over this "winner's guilt" bs and aim to prevent atrocities in the present rather than feel guilty for crimes we are not personally responsible for, and stop giving the descendants of the people that suffered those crimes excuses to blame everyone but themselves when they fail at life. Some people start better off in the lottery of life, get over it and get to work because the only person that can improve your situation is you.

    26. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Douche wont mention that Mexico, Spain, France, England, and many other countries actually took part in this famous 'social studies' story.

      He's probably form a country that had it's ass kicked by us and sent back home, or one that had to settle for 1/2 of Canada.

    27. Re:By The Same Token by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless you're a native American, you have ZERO RIGHT to say SHIT about immigrants, because one way or another YOUR ancestors were immigrants.

      Since the "native Americans" came here from Siberia 20K or so years back (except the Eskimos, who came here much more recently), that would imply that there are NO "native Americans', since their ancestors were also immigrants.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    28. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like in there is no difference between native Alaskan and Alaskan native. They are all natives, right?

    29. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we will do in again and again and again to anyone that raids our people.

      The non-savage tribes integrated. Only the ones who murdered settlers, stole their property, wives, and children before subjecting them to brutal torture got anything close to such treatment as you cuckolds describe.

    30. Re:By The Same Token by lgw · · Score: 1

      Except their own people. A totalitarian dystopia that oppresses a billion people is fine by you?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:By The Same Token by lgw · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point: all land in the world was acquired that way. All of it. There is no land that wasn't "stolen". The world's an old place.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re:By The Same Token by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You're giving Trump way too much credit for intelligence, he's not anywhere near smart enough to even conceive of such a thing -- or are you being sarcastic? If you're being sarcastic then it's okay.

    33. Re:By The Same Token by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Give them time and a free hand and it'll happen. They're almost there now

    34. Re:By The Same Token by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Different topic. Rick implied that the Chinese are shooting anyone that disagrees with them over the south china sea islands. Which is clearly not the case.

      Shooting their own people, is a different matter and not what the Rick was wrongly implying.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    35. Re:By The Same Token by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I'm 1/-32768 Jeep Indian and I say for you all for my buffer overflow.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    36. Re:By The Same Token by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Nobody should be undocumented. There's libraries everywhere!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    37. Re:By The Same Token by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I hope you also act as a conquered people after the Russian, the Chinese, the Vatican and their Grey Aliens buddies successfully invade your country.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    38. Re:By The Same Token by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    39. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a moratorium on placed on new immigrants NOW! And absolutely no fucking refugees ever. Let Canada have them.

      Fuck you, eh? Mexico is already full of brown people, let *them* have the immigrants.

    40. Re:By The Same Token by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I'm 1/-32768 Jeep Indian and I say fuck you all for my buffer overflow.

      Damn you and your lack of edit function, Slashdot!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    41. Re: By The Same Token by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      No but they are poking at the Japanese every day in the hopes that they will fuck up and fire on them. The Chinese government are true unabashed fucking assholes of the highest order. If you believe differently you should probably study up on current events. Start by looking at thier truly dystopian face tracking, social scoring nationwide surveillance system.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    42. Re: By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you know why Democrats are so afraid of Putin - he has the Big Dick,

      And that big dick is the PotUS.

    43. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I would want to live there, but buying the people's cooperation with a huge increase in standard of living hardly looks like a dystopia.

    44. Re:By The Same Token by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Called 'anchor babies' for a reason.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    45. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Native Americans come from Asia. ALL OF THEM.

      Truly native Americans died off thousands of years ago.

      numbnuts

    46. Re: By The Same Token by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I don't believe any different. The chinese government is a problem and will have to be dealt with at some point. But we don't need to be making up stories or distorting facts to recognize this.

      The facts are this. They are trying to stake claims on south china sea, that they are not entitled too. They are provoking Japan and other neighbors in the region, thus affecting the stability of the region. They are oppressing many cultures within the boarder. The Chinese are spying on many nations, including the US.

      What they are not doing is shooting at every ship or plane that comes into the territory they are trying to claim. They may start doing that, but its doubtful.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    47. Re:By The Same Token by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The Dutch acquired a lot of land from the sea.

  3. Not from sea level rise by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Coastal homes are flooding because you have destroyed the buffer zones (marshlands/swamplands) that stopped the water from entering the area. What did you think would happen when you destroy the buffer zones for housing? It has nothing to do with climate change/whatever. But no one wants to address that issue, because there is no money in it.

    1. Re:Not from sea level rise by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, we want to fill in those marshes and wetlands so we can build more homes close to the beach! Swamp land is so cheap that way! Buffer shmuffer, cheaper land to build - and more tax base for the city/county/State!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of it is due to the sheer volume of plastics we're dumping into the oceans. This stuff does not biodegrade, or does so very slowly. We pump oil from deep underground, solidify it into plastic, and divert it into the oceans. This creates enormous volumetric increase in ocean levels and environmental harm.

    3. Re:Not from sea level rise by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And that is exactly what happens - it has been happening in the US since the 1940s. And to make it even worse, people are building on flood plains, having their homes flood, and blaming it on "climate change". There is such a push to blame everything on climate change you have to wonder about the motivations.

    4. Re:Not from sea level rise by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Gotta replace the silt backing up behind dams with something.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re: Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we need to make holes and fill the oil voids back up again to keep a net zero increase? Please lookup up how oil is pumped before posting again.

    6. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your expert opinion and the excellent source material you provided. Thank god we have you to tell is the real truth so we don't have to believe those so called "scientists" and their climate change conspiracy.

    7. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed and they're usually wealthy and they've built in places they shouldn't have and expect others to bail them out. It's about time we addressed real problems that can be effectively and affordably addressed.

    8. Re:Not from sea level rise by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, I believe Climate Change made you post what you just did, and your doubting of Climate Change is, in fact, the direct result of Climate Change! Now excuse me whilst I go and respond to Climate Change and use the bathroom. Because Climate Change.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:Not from sea level rise by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You are right. I am the first person to warn people that destroying wetlands is not a good idea. If only someone had warned us earlier and offered "wetland credits" like "carbon credits" this whole situation could have been avoided.

    10. Re:Not from sea level rise by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      The poor and working class are also affected because they buy homes on flood plains because the land is cheaper. Developers aren't stupid. They aren't overpaying and they aren't around when the flooding starts. They drain the swamp and pocket the money and move on. But yeah, I guess it must be that seas are getting higher instead.

    11. Re:Not from sea level rise by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Informative

      What? To raise the sea levels worldwide by ~2.5cm, you need about 9200 cubic kilometers of volume (a bit over 360 million square km of ocean). There are about 6.5 barrels of oil per cubic meter (42 gallons per barrel, 3.78 liters per gallon), and we pump about 83 million barrels of oil a day. Doing the math, it would take about 1900 YEARS of pumping at today's rate to create enough volume to raise sea-level by 25mm - assuming 100% conversion to plastic and dumped into the ocean.

      Your statement is patently false, doesn't even pass a sniff test. But I guess that is what passes for science these days...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Not from sea level rise by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Really what you want is a way to give the Government a wad of cash, so you can go ahead and fill in the marshes, and not have to worry about the impact of your filling in the marshes because you paid your indulgence fee. So you can destroy all the marshes you want and it's all OK because you paid to the great priests of climate change!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:Not from sea level rise by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Ummmmmm, whoosh!

    14. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making a mistake. A lot of the oil is from under the sea.
      As the oil is emptied the sea bottom will lower, offsetting the oil removes, so the sea level rise from oil will be minimal.

    15. Re:Not from sea level rise by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      IF that is true, it just proves the poor and working class are STUPID.

      But I doubt it, the poor and working class watch their spending and don't buy as soon as they move. They might rent in the floodplain, but buy there? No.

      In Sacramento there are two classes of people living right next to dry creek. Tweekers and bay area transplants. Second group haven't seen the first flood yet, but moved right in. (So close to downtown!) Both groups are morons.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:Not from sea level rise by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not necessarily stupid: just misled by developers and into homes that are relatively cheap. Some people would assume that it would be illegal to build homes on floodplains and the government would be looking out for their interests. As usual, the government didn't care. Developers bought the flood plain lands because they were cheap and put housing on it. Fortunately the government has finally started to wise up to the concept that allowing homes to be built on lands that have been flooding for hundreds of years might not be a good idea.

    17. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're full of shit.

      https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

      "Miami and Miami Beach already struggle with serious flooding related to sea-level rise — even when there is no rain"

    18. Re: Not from sea level rise by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Whoosh but neither witty nor amusing...

    19. Re:Not from sea level rise by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It's actually a rather common thought by many, so much so it's even asked about on Quora and is brought up more than once.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:Not from sea level rise by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Now - where did that sea level rise come from? Natural or man-made processes (as claimed in the title of the article)? Think long and hard before you answer...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re: Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you aren't trying to deny the existence of acid rain and the Dust Bowl

    22. Re:Not from sea level rise by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Oh you mean Miami Florida WHICH USED TO BE SURROUNDED by marshlands, and was a swamp before they drained it? That Miami? So fucking stupid.

    23. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NY/NJ are getting hit with hurricanes that used to be extremely seldom, marshland areas have nothing to do with that.

    24. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but the areas they're talking about haven't had buffer zones in 100 years or more. The coastal areas of NY, NJ and CT have been heavily populated for more than 100 years. The heaving flooding they've seen in the last decade has nothing to do with new development.

      Go peddle your anti-climate change BS somewhere else.

    25. Re: Not from sea level rise by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The ironic thing about your statement is, that those who scream "CLIMATE DENIER!" the loudest tend to be the same ones who deny the dust bowl was the hottest time we ever had, even to the point of just now being equalled (at least, that's how it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s until the adjustments were fast and furious). Or that we've had the exact same 30-40 years of temperature increases before, just about 100 years ago. Or that we've been warming since the early 1700s, well before CO2 exploded. But they deny facts anyway and scream "DENIER!" for refusing to accept the proclamations of the new High Priests of Science - and ignore the old pantheon like Feynman, Einstein, and others.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    26. Re:Not from sea level rise by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, that isn't universally true. I noticed a particular island I dream of having a home on seriously discounting costal homes, and there is no buffer zone. There are other factors, but unless these homes are on non-traditional stilts, there is a huge discount.

    27. Re:Not from sea level rise by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Coastal homes are flooding because you have destroyed the buffer zones (marshlands/swamplands) that stopped the water from entering the area. What did you think would happen when you destroy the buffer zones for housing? It has nothing to do with climate change/whatever. But no one wants to address that issue, because there is no money in it.

      You are right that destroying the buffer zones doesn't help the situation but that doesn't change the fact that sea level is rising and those buffer zones would be under water sooner or later anyway.

    28. Re: Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they probably just yell denier at you because you are one.
      You pick and choose your version of 'facts' to 'believe' in and then cling to them no matter what. Until your denialist friends cherry pick another 'fact' and then that becomes your new mantra. rinse repeat.

    29. Re:Not from sea level rise by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I smell a conspiracy theory in the making.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:Not from sea level rise by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, you can be as smart as you want to, if your funds are limited you can't simply buy a more expensive home that's better located...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    31. Re:Not from sea level rise by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but in Florida, for example, especially around the Miami area, it's land subsidence, not water rise, that is causing problems.

      Somebody might have considered that when you build on land that was previously not much more than swamp, there might be reason it was swamp.

      In any case: the Maldives aren't sinking, their land area is actually increasing. Same with just about every other island you can name.

      There may be a few exceptions, but they are damned few.

      But I do understand real estate prices dropping; that always happens when people are afraid of imaginary disasters.

      The fact that prices are dropping out of fear has zero to do with any science, and it sure as hell isn't confirmation of science.

    32. Re:Not from sea level rise by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I suppose I should add that of course the story is about land VALUE disappearing out of fear, not land actually disappearing.

      It's a scare story. Nothing more.

      Al Gore and many others are still enjoying their multi-million beachfront homes.

    33. Re: Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dust bowl is important because we did it. No climate would have supported the disregard for best farming practices. Happened in Iceland before that. See also what was once the fertile crescent.

    34. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough with your common sense! To the stake with you!

    35. Re:Not from sea level rise by lgw · · Score: 2

      And to make it even worse, people are building on flood plains, having their homes flood, and blaming it on "climate change".

      For one BinaryTroll has a point. Much of the flooding around Houston during the recent hurricane was subdivisions build in areas purpose designed to flood in order to keep other areas from flooding. None of that was secret either - it's clearly shown on flood maps. I guess people don't understand that "100 year flood zone" means "this house will probably be lost to flooding during its expected life". But humans are bad at low-probability risks.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    36. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now excuse me whilst I go and respond to Climate Change and use the bathroom.

      I smell a conspiracy theory in the making.

      Umm, not a conspiracy. It was GP's burrito from last night.

    37. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now - where did that sea level rise come from? Natural or man-made processes (as claimed in the title of the article)? Think long and hard before you answer...

      What's most funny is that the biggest factor isn't sea-level rise, or thermal expansion, or even subsidence. Want to know why the Miami flooding was so bad the past few years? Corrupt local government not keeping the storm drains cleaned out. Parking lot at work used to flood up to 2 or 3 feet deep on a single day of heavy rain. When my boss's car was destroyed, he had a private company come in and clear out the drain all the way to the nearest canal, no more problems. In fact, might have been what got the corruption exposure started - him *illegally* cleaning the fucking city's storm drain...

    38. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, we want to fill in those marshes and wetlands so we can build more homes close to the beach! Swamp land is so cheap that way! Buffer shmuffer, cheaper land to build - and more tax base for the city/county/State!

      Nobody is allowed to fill in marshes or wetlands. To do so requires that one creates replacement wetlands somewhere else, or purchase "credits" from companies that specialize in creating wetlands.

      I'm building a driveway over a ditch that is considered "wetlands". I've spent two years and $50,000 jumping through flaming fucking hoops so I can dump some gravel out on the ground.

      And building on flood plain is completely forbidden. No exceptions.

    39. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummmmm. Yeah.
      Not really.
      You do know that climate change can cause excess flooding, right?

      Is everything okay at home, 10010001000? You can talk to us here.

    40. Re: Not from sea level rise by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      The ironic thing about your statement is, that those who scream "CLIMATE DENIER!" the loudest tend to be the same ones who deny the dust bowl was the hottest time we ever had,

      Who is "we"?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    41. Re:Not from sea level rise by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Now - where did that sea level rise come from? Natural or man-made processes (as claimed in the title of the article)? Think long and hard before you answer...

      What's most funny is that the biggest factor isn't sea-level rise, or thermal expansion, or even subsidence. Want to know why the Miami flooding was so bad the past few years? Corrupt local government not keeping the storm drains cleaned out. Parking lot at work used to flood up to 2 or 3 feet deep on a single day of heavy rain.

      So how come Miami also floods on sunny days, no rain, no storm? Just the KingTide.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    42. Re:Not from sea level rise by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You can however choose your crappy location and not buy the one that floods every 10-15 years. Rather the long commute.

      Poor people can't afford to fuckup like that, taking years to save the down payment also means they aren't just 'fat, dumb and happy' going in.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    43. Re:Not from sea level rise by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No. Not how it worked in Sacramento.

      In Sac, the city council member's families owned the developers. They just declared the north Natomas levees '100 year'. Built a bunch of subdivisions. Then said 'oops' and resigned from the city council (but so far escaped prosecution). The people owning the houses are now paying a high special assessment to upgrade the levees to protect their houses from the American and Sacramento rivers. Which does absolutely nothing for those of them near dry creek. Which regularly floods from immediate surface runoff. They are actually overdue.

      Truth is, most of Sacramento is built on floodplains, all of downtown to start. 3 regions named 'heights' or 'highlands' though. Two of which are tweaked out shitholes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    44. Re: Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u proly like trump

    45. Re:Not from sea level rise by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      In any case: the Maldives aren't sinking, their land area is actually increasing. Same with just about every other island you can name.

      Bull fucking shit. The south pacific islands are disappearing, and coastal areas around the world are being flooded like never before.

    46. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have been much cheaper, faster and easier to build a small bridge.

      numbnuts

    47. Re:Not from sea level rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very fucking stupid.

      They cheaped out of a solid inspection and got bit. Fuck them for being stupid.

      Of course, look at all the retarded rednecks that live in floodplains near the Mississippi. The shitstains act all shocked when they get flooded out again, and again, and again and they never consider taking the insurance money, paying off their loans for retards( ) and moving somewhere better.

      We like to call them the Trump base.

      numbnuts

  4. I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not my problem. Some rich motherfucker's problem.

    1. Re:I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what, idiot? It's the rich who live on the water. The poor live inland.

    2. Re: I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the California fag.

    3. Re:I don't care by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Not my problem. Some rich motherfucker's problem.

      Except that you're still going to end up paying to bail them out. Not all of them will be bailed out but it will be enough that it's going to cost you as well.

    4. Re:I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots calling me an idiot

      Well I guess that's about par for the course. Tell me, dumbshit AC, how will you feel in January, after the Democrats have taken back control of the House, and start the Impeachment proceedings against your boy Trump? Will you rage hard? I hope so, your tears will taste like the sweetest wine to me.

  5. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Battery Park in Manhattan shows effectively ZERO acceleration over the last 150 years or so, but I guess that's not an exciting Gloom And Doom headline...

    It's speculation. It's rarely based on anything real.

  6. Re:LynnwoodRooster = fake name massive human fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get back on your meds or they're going to lock you up again.

  7. L O L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who gives a crap about real-estate agents and others who speculate on property and people's ability to live somewhere, when they worry that they will make a little bit less than the crazy amounts of money they already make?

  8. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally have rights to every property over the 39th Floor.

    I'm still working on getting time on the Space Telescope though.

  9. Beach property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sweet sweet beach property isn't so sweet when it's underwater huh.

    1. Re:Beach property by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What? But indoor seawater pools are the latest craze!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Climate change is yet another of those topics that brings out the worst in this "community". Morons either outright denying the reality of CC and its horrific impacts, or other morons trying to prove how smart they are by saying things like, "The real problem isn't sea level rise its the destruction of marshes."

    This place could be so much more than it is, if it weren't for the mental masturbators who can't simply accept the view of the overwhelming number of experts in a field.

    1. Re:slashdot at its worst by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who is denying the reality of climate change? My point is that the reason your flood plain or fucking beach house is flooding IS BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP THE WATER FROM ENTERING YOUR HOME. You drained the swamp, destroyed the wetlands. What the fuck you think is going to happen? No number of "carbon credits" is going to change it.

    2. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, its exactly the reason that hurricane Katrina did so much flood damage to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Even without the factor of climate change, the elimination of the wetlands buffer that reduces the impact from storm surges can lead to devastating floods caused from even low category hurricanes.

    3. Re:slashdot at its worst by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      At least rant about the right boogeyman. It's the dams that are holding back the silt that are wrecking coastal beaches.

      Floodplains flood. Hence the name. Makes for great soil. Worth losing 1 crop in x. Still a nice farming business.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:slashdot at its worst by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Dams are even worse. That is why when I hear the climate change zealots talking about clean energy from hydro power I get sick. Dams are NOT clean power. They do a huge amount of ecological damage. But I have realized that people really don't care about the environment - it is really just another political and financial tool to leverage against each other. Oh and that $60,000 Tesla you see driving around? It isn't doing a damn thing to help the environment.

    5. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because now 90% of /. posters are either trolls or shills.

    6. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, its exactly the reason that hurricane Katrina did so much flood damage to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Even without the factor of climate change, the elimination of the wetlands buffer that reduces the impact from storm surges can lead to devastating floods caused from even low category hurricanes.

      Or maybe it's just the fact that cities were built so close to the ocean that an occasional major storm can take them out.

      Perhaps that kind of damage could have just as easily occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago, if someone were living there.

      If you cover almost the entire face of the earth with human habitations, you should expect a natural disaster to wipe some of them out on a regular basis.

    7. Re:slashdot at its worst by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 0

      There's always two sides. For me when people jump up and down and say we need to hurry make carbon more expensive so we use less of it (aka make it unaffordable for the poor to consume energy) so the rich people don't lose thieir million dollar coastal condos...I think THAT is idiotic :D

      Florida was supposed to be underwater by the 90s, and last time I checked it is still there. One man's expert is another man's medieval soothsayer crying wolf.

    8. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but what experts are we to trust? If we do blindly accept their findings, why do we need to discuss news at all? They can speak and we will accept without question.

      Or to make the point in another way: in 1950 all tobacco experts said tobacco was perfectly safe. A few non-tobacco health researchers said it wasn't. Without questioning that, without deciding who to trust and what is true, we would have never discovered the cancerous effects of smoking.

    9. Re:slashdot at its worst by louzer · · Score: 1

      Why is that all dystopias and apocalypses are always predicted to happen in the lifetime of people hearing the prediction? You never hear about an apocalypse that will happen a few 1000 years from now even though we can do more to avert it.

      Humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. How unlucky would we have to witness the last of us?

      Statistically Significant results are three times more likely to be published than papers with null results.

      By framing the hypothesis to align with your agenda, you can get anything to be science. And from that point onward scientific legitimacy is equivalent to political legitimacy, because all that matters is who gets to gather enough legitimacy by political means to frame the hypothesis.

      It would take political clout to grant money to only one type of hypothesis but it can be done, if you are a rich enough donor in grant-making NGOs or a rich lobbyist in government agencies.

      The great thing about this technique is that you do not have to ask the scientists to meddle with p-values and create data mining bias because that is prone to whistleblowing. This method is also resistant to meta-analyses and reviews.

      There have been cases in science where 40,000 papers by experts had to be considered questionable. It is possible for a large number of experts to be wrong.

      --
      Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
    10. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who can't simply accept the view of the overwhelming number of experts in a field.

      So when dietary/nutrition science keeps getting stuff wrong (even though there's a majority consensus at the time)... heh, you know where I'm going with this.

      The number of experts who subscribe to a theory is meaningless. It's the data and its reproducibility that matters.

      It's like the story of Einstein laughing at a newspaper article titled something like "One Hundred German Physicists Claim Einsteins Theory of Relativity is Wrong". If something is wrong, you dont need 100 people to tell you; one is enough.

      That said, going green (or blue for the EU chaps) makes a lot of sense regardless of AGW's merit.

    11. Re:slashdot at its worst by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Unlike the morons who believe every worst possible headline. There could be a headline on Slashdot, "AGW To Cause World to End Tomorrow" and people would defend it. Then there could be a headline, "AGW Caused Earth to Explode Yesterday" and there would still be people who believed it blindly.

      That's what happens when science gets mixed up with politics: people choose their side and follow it without thinking. There aren't many people even here who understand how to calculate the black body temperature of the earth, though a few more do understand why it matters.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:slashdot at its worst by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Florida was supposed to be underwater by the 90s, and last time I checked it is still there.

      Show me any oceanographer with scientific credentials who ever said that. You're paying attention to the wrong people if you think that was an actual prediction.

    13. Re:slashdot at its worst by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There have been cases in science where 40,000 papers by experts had to be considered questionable. It is possible for a large number of experts to be wrong.

      What you always fail to mention in noting this factoid is that the vast majority of them are in the medical or social sciences field. When you get into the physical sciences the number of retractions is far smaller. I think that is a distinction worth making.

    14. Re:slashdot at its worst by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      This place could be so much more than it is, if it weren't for the paid shills

      .

      But why should, of all sites, Slashdot not have them? Just grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the view, the times of sensible discussion on this board have been over for at least 5-10 years.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:slashdot at its worst by Teun · · Score: 1

      Why would the poor care for the price of carbon (fuels)?
      It's the price of energy he should worry about, once clean energy becomes commonplace it shouldn't be priced much different than what we pay today for dirty energy.
      Don't forget today the price of dirty energy is much more than what you pay to the supplier, there is a deferred cost to the environment, you exhaust resources and you pollute, both are expenses for your kids.

      Btw, where did you get the claim Florida should have flooded 20-30 years ago?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    16. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that hot air, and what insight did you bestow upon the community?

      Nothing.

      You attack a persons comment for removing the buffer zones from 'wet' areas like it is nothing. Well junior, it's obvious you haven't a clue how water works. Maybe you should go back to 7-8th grade and take a refresher class.

    17. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Additionally, the retracted papers are often looking into new phenomenon without much foundational research to support it. Climate change has been studied extensively for 40 years. It has tons of foundational research and if any paper were retracted, it would be over a minor detail in the grand scheme. There won't be a paper that proves climate change wrong. The basic measurements won't change if climate change is proven wrong. Rather, anything new will simply explain what we see better. I don't think it's gonna happen.

    18. Re:slashdot at its worst by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      If they're wrong, then we're just making the planet a better place to live.
      If they're right, then you better fucking do what they say or you're putting the human race in danger.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    19. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are contributing to the shitshow. SLR has been 2.7mm per year for a LONG TIME, with NO acceleration. The reaction is to the BS of folks like you who keep crying wolf. We are in an interglacial period, this is "between" periods where we would be covered by a mile of ice. The cycle is warm/cold/warm/cold etc. The water is rising because it is supposed to, and we will get out of the way. You clinging to the notion that 100 or 200 extra PPM of CO2 is some kind of climate switch is not supported by the data. Again, you are causing the shitshow, not anyone else.

    20. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      90% of /. posters have ALWAYS been either trolls or shills.

    21. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, we should have more slashdotters like you, whose only input is insulting every other slashdotter - nothing constructive, no sources, just "I am right, everyone who thinks otherwise is a moron".

    22. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions.

      There is no scientific evidence for that.

      numbnuts

    23. Re:slashdot at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?

      Don't trust industry paid "experts".

      Fucking numbnuts

  11. Problem for rich people by reanjr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Primarily rich people and real estate investors wild be hit, while the middde class homes a bit farther inland will increase in value. Win/win.

    1. Re:Problem for rich people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      Ask me to give a shit about declining property values for celebrities and other assorted uberrich assholes with oceanfront property, and I'll send you a Bad Dragon link where you can buy something large and pink to violently insert into yourself over and over.

    2. Re:Problem for rich people by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      But the majority of people are renting, so they'll just get pushed out by gentrification into ever crappier neighborhoods.

    3. Re:Problem for rich people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.5% is the minimum down payment. Don't buy into the "gig economy" (unless running a consultancy) and invest.

    4. Re:Problem for rich people by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except when they use their political influence to get the city to reject managed retreat as a coastal erosion adaptation strategy. Guess who those homeowners expect to pay to rebuild the coastline?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    5. Re:Problem for rich people by careysub · · Score: 1

      Primarily rich people and real estate investors wild be hit, while the middde class homes a bit farther inland will increase in value. Win/win.

      There was a story on this recently in the Washington Post.

      The study found the drop in prices appears to be driven primarily by investors buying multiple properties or second homes. Such buyers tend to be wealthier and better educated than owners who occupy their coastal homes, said Ryan Lewis, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Colorado and a co-author of the study.

      “Sophisticated buyers ... demand a discount to bear the risk of future sea level rise,” Lewis said in an email.

      So the rich people and the real estate investors are the ones getting properties cheap(er).

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:Problem for rich people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the majority of people are renting, so they'll just get pushed out by gentrification into ever crappier neighborhoods.

      64% of American homes are occupied by the owner. Are you using some new definition of "majority" that the rest of us are not aware of?
      https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States

    7. Re:Problem for rich people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that all these poor rich people living next to the sea and rivers, want the middle class tax payers to bail them out.

    8. Re:Problem for rich people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that rich people tend to take money from poor people in order to bail out their fellow rich people when they get themselves into trouble.

  12. Conservatives don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Conservatives don't care, because most of the coastal states are blue states, and the more liberals suffer, the happier conservatives are. They voted for Trump for this exact reason, just because it pisses off liberals, regardless of the possible consequences.

    1. Re:Conservatives don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus conservatives own the land that will soon become ocean shore property, so they have a vested interest in hastening climate change.

    2. Re:Conservatives don't care by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Maine wave "hi". More coastal States went for Trump than went for Clinton. That's why President Trump won 57% of the votes that matter - the Electoral College.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Conservatives don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They voted for Trump for this exact reason, just because it pisses off liberals, regardless of the possible consequences.

      You have no idea why I voted for Trump. I voted for Obama twice, but Obama disgusted me so thoroughly that I wanted to send a FUCK YOU message to the Democratic party, and voting for Trump was how I did that.

      And I am voting for him again. Suck on that, you pathetic worthless subhuman SJW bitch.

    4. Re:Conservatives don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everytime a fucking trumptard opens his mouth, he gives more and more proof of how chronically and pathetically immature he is.

      You want to know the profile of a Trump voter ? They are not stupid, gullible, uneducated, sociopathic, or anything like that.

      Plainly and simply: They have the maturity of a frustrated teenage rebellious kid.

      You wanted to send a big FUCK YOU to the dems, just like pathetic little teenagers decide to hit a seven eleven at gun point to send a big FUCK YOU to their parents, compromising their entire future in the process.

      Pathetic little immature adults like you shouldn't be allowed to run the country, anymore than pathetic little immature kids should be allowed to run the household.

    5. Re: Conservatives don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives dont want you Marxists to suffer. Thats just projection.

      What we do want is for you to stuf and go away to some Marxist paradise like Venezuela and leave us alone to live our lives as we see fit without your control freakery.

    6. Re:Conservatives don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have no idea why I voted for Trump.

      It doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is if you still support him. If you do, you are either stupid, insane, or hate America.

  13. Undersea bases by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 2

    Ahh, but what's happening to the stock prices of companies which are converting coastal properties into cool undersea bases?

  14. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone living in central NY at an elevation of around 700 feet, I look forward to having a shorter drive to the beach.

  15. They were overvalued. by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Common sense says don't build on a flood plain. Oh and stop destroying marshlands and wetlands that protect from flooding in the first place.

    1. Re:They were overvalued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common sense says don't build wall to wall duplexes on a sand bar like the jersey shore.

    2. Re:They were overvalued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there is a song about this it's called "Don't build your house on the Sandy land"

  16. Mass Shooting at Pro Gaming Event! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder they were so desperate to take Alex Jones down!

  17. Questionable methodology by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    I read the report. They're including events like Hurricanes as part of their "sea level rising" flooding damage totals. That seems rather suspect to me since they don't indicate whether or not they subtracted out the net rise in sea levels from the total storm surge damage from hurricanes.

    1. Re:Questionable methodology by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that total accumulated cyclone energy is on a decided downtrend, historically. We're having fewer storms, and fewer big storms. We're building more expensive buildings right on the beach though, so when there IS a storm, it does more financial damage.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Questionable methodology by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that total accumulated cyclone energy is on a decided downtrend, historically.

      No, it isn't.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    3. Re:Questionable methodology by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. At least since 1990.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Questionable methodology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are getting more storms and bigger ones. A cat 4 or 5 used to be rare now they are common and come multiple times in a typical year.

      numbnuts

    5. Re:Questionable methodology by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. At least since 1990.

      So where is "the trend"? There is no single mention of a trend on that page.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    6. Re:Questionable methodology by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the four figures. If you cannot spot a trend down since the mid 90s - you're either completely blind or incompetent.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Questionable methodology by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the four figures. If you cannot spot a trend down since the mid 90s - you're either completely blind or incompetent.

      That coming from the dude who keeps seeing downward trends in the fucking temperature records. Get your eyesight checked, you blind moonbat.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    8. Re:Questionable methodology by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      since the mid 90s

      PS: cherry picking duly noted.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  18. Really? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    This is as silly as reporting the damage done by wildfires in $. Yes, more people are building multi-million dollar homes out in the wilderness, so there's "more" damage done by fires that 50 years ago would barely have been noticed.

    Just like sea level rise - the more idiotic people build in flood plains, the more "damage" sea level rise will do to people....when it's the people putting themSELVES in that danger.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Really? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Exactly. This is the other fucking annoying set of stories we get regularly. These wildfires are (mostly) caused by PEOPLE. You don't need climate change to explain why having people enter and build in formerly forested areas is going to cause and increase in fires. You would think it would be common sense, but certain organizations keep pushing the narrative. It might get worse due to drier conditions (which might be caused by climate change), but that isn't the cause of the problem. It is like treating skin cancer with by treating the lesions on the skin with bandaids.

  19. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who wants to buy an at risk home? Why is this even news.

  20. $10 billion virtual money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with the $$$ calculation:
    Assume are defined region has X number of homes. At current market rates they are worth $10 billion. But, is more that fraction of those homes come on the market, the supply increases. If the demand stays the same, then the prices start to drop as more and more homes enter the market. If you increase the demand, then the prices go up. Somehow I cannot imagine the demand increase to the point where there is a buyer for every single house in the defined region. This leads me to conclude that the $10 billion value is fictional. The only way those homes will sell and $10 billion is actually paid to the sellers is over time. Probably decades.
    Am I wrong?

    1. Re:$10 billion virtual money by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      You assume demand follow the offer, but there are frictions that slow the process. People cannot always move easily.

  21. national flood insurance by ooloorie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're not responding to sea level rise, they are responding to the expiration of the federal flood insurance program.

    As long as the federal flood insurance program was in place, people whose houses got flooded simply could rebuild a shiny new house at taxpayer expense again and again.

    As for sea level rise, it is happening and going to continue at roughly the same rate for a couple of centuries at least, no matter what we do, so that can't be the cause of sudden changes in coastal real estate prices. Whatever the threat may or may not be, it has been priced in for years.

    Furthermore, homes depreciate over about 30 years, so anything beyond that horizon is not worth worrying about.

    1. Re:national flood insurance by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      not only that, but they're going to claim recession of 2008 didn't cause some of the property value drop??!!! bullshit

    2. Re:national flood insurance by Shompol · · Score: 1

      ... sea level rise...that can't be the cause of sudden changes in coastal real estate prices

      Unfortunately climate change does not work "gradually over hundreds of years". We in NY/NJ getting hit with hurricanes the likes of which we have not been seen before. Prime real estate at ocean front either got swept away and what is left of it lost all value. Even in my far from ocean town the houses close to river cannot be sold any longer.

    3. Re:national flood insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... No.

    4. Re:national flood insurance by ooloorie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately climate change does not work "gradually over hundreds of years".

      We're talking about sea level rise, not climate change. Sea level rise necessarily is slow and gradual.

      We in NY/NJ getting hit with hurricanes the likes of which we have not been seen before. Prime real estate at ocean front either got swept away and what is left of it lost all value. Even in my far from ocean town the houses close to river cannot be sold any longer.

      The only reason "ocean front real estate" is "prime" is because of massive government subsidies. Prior to those, people avoided the ocean front because they would be regularly subject to storms and other natural disasters.

      It's interesting what straws you people grasp at to justify your crony capitalism.

    5. Re:national flood insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not responding to sea level rise, they are responding to the expiration of the federal flood insurance program.

      As long as the federal flood insurance program was in place, people whose houses got flooded simply could rebuild a shiny new house at taxpayer expense again and again.

      As for sea level rise, it is happening and going to continue at roughly the same rate for a couple of centuries at least, no matter what we do, so that can't be the cause of sudden changes in coastal real estate prices. Whatever the threat may or may not be, it has been priced in for years.

      Furthermore, homes depreciate over about 30 years, so anything beyond that horizon is not worth worrying about.

      This^^
      I recently moved from the coast, and the change in insurance costs has been huge over the last two decades.
      As for the other posters talking about the rich, the coastal regions aren't just rich people. Most coastal residents are not rich and don't have beachfront property. There's a lot of people whose families have been there forever in those houses, and a lot of good-income but not rich (people such as small business owners) that live on the coast because they like it. But houses have a problem when selling because the insurance rates are painful, so prices are affected down.
      Also living two blocks from the beachfront may you a much cheaper house, but you get the same beating from the insurance companies because those houses flood just as much as the ones in the front.

    6. Re:national flood insurance by bradley13 · · Score: 2

      This. It's all about subsidized flood insurance. Without it, people would have to pay realistic rates for flood insurance, meaning that many properties would become worthless - as they should be.

      FWIW, here's the FEMA page about the flood insurance renewal. They write: "NFIP reauthorization is an opportunity for Congress to take bold steps to reduce the complexity of the program and strengthen the NFIP’s financial framework so that the program can continue helping individuals and communities take the critical step of securing flood insurance.".

      As usual, Congress is kicking the can down the road, with the next renewal date being November 30th. What are the chances that Congress will have the guts to not renew the program? There is just no reason for this program to exist - if you build in a flood zone, buy your own damned insurance. But not renewing the program would piss off lots of rich campaign donors, so...

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    7. Re:national flood insurance by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, homes depreciate over about 30 years, so anything beyond that horizon is not worth worrying about.

      Structures may depreciate over time. But the land increases in value. Otherwise real estate wouldn't be considered an investment. Also even though the structure is "depreciated" the cost of new construction is increasing so the market value may actually still be higher than when purchased. In some very low cost areas people look at a house as somewhere to live and they die there and don't give a darn what it's worth at the end. In other places, the appreciation is part of their financial plans.

    8. Re:national flood insurance by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      But the land increases in value. Otherwise real estate wouldn't be considered an investment.

      Sometimes land increases in value, sometimes it decreases in value. Coastal land in particular is always risky and usually at risk of eroding away or flooding.

      Also even though the structure is "depreciated" the cost of new construction is increasing so the market value may actually still be higher than when purchased.

      The reason depreciated structures retain any market value after their depreciation period is because they are continuously maintained. Stop spending money on maintenance and save it for a new home, and by the time the old home has depreciated, it will be close to uninhabitable, but you will have money to buy a new one somewhere else.

      In other places, the appreciation is part of their financial plans.

      Tough cookies. Coastal real estate is not a sensible investment in the absence of massive government subsidies. And just because someone has come to rely on government subsidies isn't justification for continuing those subsidies, which is why there is a strong push to end the federal flood insurance program.

      But, as I was saying, all of this has nothing to do with climate change anyway, since continuing sea level rise is inevitable and will continue to occur at about the same rate as it has over the last few decades. Therefore, home owners have already priced that in decades ago, and there is nothing society can do about it anyway.

    9. Re:national flood insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Housing prices have recovered and in most areas is significantly higher than before the housing crash.

      numbnuts

  22. Costs to capital by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is about the cost for capital, but sea level rise impact on the whole economy is likely to be much larger.

  23. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I have to disagree. I spot a slight curve; not a strait (sloped) line.

  24. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

    Nowhere in the article or summary does it mention anything about acceleration, or even comment on the rate of increase at all.

    Meanwhile the page you linked clearly shows a steady upward trend in tide height.
    =Smidge=

  25. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0, Troll

    OK, what acceleration rate do you spot? You can download the raw data from that site, do a fit. Exponential, polynomial (2nd order), it's all pretty much a straight line.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  26. idiots build in flood zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And are surprised when the basement floods.
    Americans think because the dutch build in marches and reclaimed land, they can do it too.
    But they don't know the first thing about water management.

  27. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nowhere in the article or summary does it mention anything about acceleration, or even comment on the rate of increase at all.

    Then you didn't dig far enough. Their article is based on this paper which says its "research builds on a growing body of literature which suggests that SLR is occurring at a more rapid pace than even some of the more liberal projections can account for". So - accelerating sea level.

    Meanwhile the page you linked clearly shows a steady upward trend in tide height.

    Correct - to show there's no acceleration, so it's nothing about "climate change" from man. It's natural. Moral of the story? Don't build on land that is subsiding, has zero altitude, or in a flood plain. We've had an increasing sea level for thousands of years, and it's going to continue until the next ice age.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  28. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Upward trend in tide height, or downward trend of sinking of the pylon they have been using as a depth gauge?

  29. Billions is not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in a sub division that is made of 800 houses on what used to be a 150 acre farm (6 years ago it was a farm). Average price today is $1.4 million, putting the total value of homes on that 150 acre farm above $1 billion.

  30. Do what they want - pay attention to the story by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0, Troll

    Note the distorted headline: Sea Level Rise Already Causing Billions in Home Value To Disappear

    You are to think rising seas are already wiping out billions of dollars worth of homes.

    But it is just the fear of it, not actual destruction or even encroachment. Pay attention when these stories crop up from time to time. Oh noes, sea rise is causing an island to sink and the inhabitants are moving out! In the fine print, the sea isn't rising over the island, but the very low island is just compressing under the water finally.

    "Global warming sea rise will be like (Phucket) tsunami!" In the fine print, there may be 3 to 30 foot sea rise (same as tsunami!) but over 100-300 years, not 30 seconds.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  31. Homes under water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This loss in value could not in any way be related to changes in federal tax code and reflecting the mass exodus of these same coastal high-state-tax havens and an attempt to frame the situation in a way that conflates current administration policies on tax and climate in order to set up lucrative lawsuits.

  32. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can dream, though...

  33. Stop IMPERSONATING me... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Grow up, get on topic, & get a life (for your own sake).

    APK

    P.S.=> Seriously... apk

    1. Re:Stop IMPERSONATING me... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Irony of you telling someone to grow up and get a life lol. If you are the real one you are no fucking better than he is.

    2. Re:Stop IMPERSONATING me... apk by Teun · · Score: 1

      We need a -2 APK moderation...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  34. Ready to buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am ready to buy, anyone who would like to sell distressed waterfront...

    1. Re:Ready to buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NYC gets hit with a hurricane every other year since recently. If you find a property that was not washed away yet it will be a poor investment, as things are going downhill.

  35. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by careysub · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oddly enough this site you link to documents that sea levels are rising, and accelerating, most everywhere, except were post-glacial rebounding is occurring (the home page helpfully mentions this -- "glacial isostatic adjustment"). A single spot like Battery Park in Manhattan only shows that Battery Park in Manhattan is not showing the long term rise to be accelerating, perhaps due to local subsidence.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  36. That's what insurance is for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen people abusing this for luxury second homes.

  37. Breaking news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Building on a flood or tidal plane is economically unsound.

  38. Are property tax bills dropping as well? by mveloso · · Score: 1

    If property tax bills aren't dropping then this valuation analysis is junk.

  39. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by BoogieChile · · Score: 5, Informative

    This house here? the one that's three kilometres inland and 150 METRES above sea level?

    Hmm...I wonder what he thinks is going to happen...

  40. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Se levels are NOT rising. If they were, nobody in Manhatten could get insurance.

  41. I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona by flatulus · · Score: 1

    Song by George Strait released in 1986. It was supposedly a sappy love song, but I always equated it to the plot of Superman (the one with Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder), referred to by parent post.

    This whole "destruction of waterfront property" thing reminds me of these rules of thumb:

    1) Those who do not have, want things to change
    2) Those that have, want things to stay as they are

    and finally,

    3) Eventually, things change. Trying to hold back change is like (snicker) trying to hold back the tide...

    1. Re:I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      It's quite easy to hold back the Tide. After all, it's stuck in 4.43L jugs!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  42. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet that people who actually need insurance in Manhattan can actually spell it.

  43. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or A View To Kill?

  44. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    Al Gore recently (well, a few years ago...) purchased a fairly large beachfront home here in California. That's ONE of the reasons why I discount claims that the sea level will rise more than a few inches per century.

    I checked out that home on google maps and it's located at about 450 feet above sea level. I don't think sea level rise is going to cause any problems there for the foreseeable future.

  45. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by riverat1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Battery Park in Manhattan shows effectively ZERO acceleration over the last 150 years or so, but I guess that's not an exciting Gloom And Doom headline...

    So Battery Park is a suitable proxy for sea level rise around the world? I think not. Meanwhile sea level measurements from satellites do show an acceleration in SLR.

  46. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in valu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that the one with Elon Musk in it?

  47. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hire someone to spell it for them.

  48. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't that Lex Luthor's plan in a Superman Movie ?

    Living off grid on a mountain side with fresh spring waters, solar power, geothermal heat , and an organic garden
    is better than
    beach front tourist trap spring break housing.

  49. More like... by countach · · Score: 1

    Not so much sea level rise as risk of sea level rise. The news flow about sea level rises is hurting values more than actual sea level rises.

  50. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in valu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Except bring the coastline closer and push up the value :)

  51. The First Act by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Yes, loss of value as well as much higher taxes are a consequence of rising seas. Your tax dollars have been supporting the alteration of military bases to cope with rising waters. Miami has a large expense already in the creation of pumping systems to keep the beach area from frequent flooding. What we are doing now should have been done 30 years ago when Al Gore made public the tragedy of rising seas. Now the second shoe will drop. As the building values drop the insurance companies will want to charge the same sums or even more for buildings that are now at half value due to threat of flooding. It also means that there will be no interest in taking new customers. Banks will not write mortgages due to flood risks which halts all new construction . As insurance companies pay out for losses the banks that own the insurance companies will become weaker. In much of Florida fresh drinking water will only occur if desalinization plants operate meaning water bills for home will sore enough to devalue existing homes and mansions. Population numbers will shift to higher areas causing all kinds of disruption and chaos. This issue is urgent beyond imagination and it is a huge enough problem that government will not be able to deal with it at all. Conservatives have effectively doomed this nation as we know it. With current sea levels it is unwise to be near any river or sea shore if a hurricane comes along. The chaos will be strongly amplified and God help us if a storm comes ashore at high tide. It will be tragic.

  52. Coast and water views aren't bumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Used to be that coast or water views were price add ons.

    There is a small city in my metro area that is mostly coastline and the area has lots of rivers. Nearly every home requires flood insurance because it's listed as a flood plain by FEMA.

    Anything build before 2010 or so is devalued, but especially the homes built from 1950-2000. Nearly everyone considers them a disaster waiting to happen, as a result the prices in he area are 20-30% less on average vs other cities in the metro area.

    People are wising up, coastal housing needs to be dynamic, keeping homes within a half mile of the coast is no longer a hundred year proposition.

  53. It's usually screamed at climate deniers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the rest are internet trolls. So, yeah, kinda weird the right wing so afraid of a spade being called a spade when it's them being called it.
    Hypocrisy is, though, the defining factor of the rightwingnutjob.

  54. So how does that disprove sea level rise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or are you intellectually incapable of thinking that there may be more than one thing happening at a time?

  55. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that the only retort you can muster?

    Might as well explicitly acknowledge that he was correct.

  56. That's a complete and utter lie, dickhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, AIT doesn't say WHEN it will happen, only that if WAIS and GIS melt florida will be mostly underwater.
    And if you meant NY underwater, it was. The claim was the subway area. And it did flood. Remember the hurricane that hit NY? It was on the news. And the prediction wasn't "by the 90's".
    But you're too dumb to know even what your RWNJ echo chamber says about it, so you mangle two lies and then get THAT wrong too.

    1. Re:That's a complete and utter lie, dickhead. by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Weather is not climate idiot.

  57. Clever by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Clever of the seas to rise only on one coast!

  58. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Funny

    This house here? the one that's three kilometres inland and 150 METRES above sea level?

    Hmm...I wonder what he thinks is going to happen...

    I, too, stand with Al Gore and the eco-sustainability of mansions! Down with "repug-licans"!

  59. House market bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That time period also includes the house market bubble when prices were way over-inflated. The resulting crash is where lots of money was lost.

  60. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by Smidge204 · · Score: 0

    Then you didn't dig far enough. Their article is based on this paper which says its "research builds on a growing body of literature which suggests that SLR is occurring at a more rapid pace than even some of the more liberal projections can account for". So - accelerating sea level.

    That's not what the part you quoted says; the rate isn't increasing, it's just that the rate is higher than expected.

    Reading further, they actually do claim an acceleration - but it's on the order of mm per year per decade; far to small to readily see on the graphs PSMSL offers. A specific example is given as Virginia Key, FL (From 3+/-2 mm/yr to 9+/-4mm/yr in the past decade) and if you stand back and squint you can kinda see an upward trend. I'm sure analyzing the actual tabular data directly makes the trends easier to see, but that's an exercise for the reader.

    =Smidge=

  61. just deal with it by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    Assuming ocean levels really are rising, maybe you should consider moving to higher ground. Adapt or die. It ain't rocket science.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  62. in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rich people who built houses right on the public beaches (preventing access to those same beaches) now have flooding problems and want the government and taxpayers to help stop it.

    Cry me a river.

  63. related is unrelated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flooding related to sea level rise is not related to sea level rise. It is generally related to land subsidence, and increased frequency and severity of storms.

  64. Doesn't seem to stop the banks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...from granting loans to develop along the coasts, even with all the due-diligence in place.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

    Determining whether it's a good argument or not is an exercise left to the reader. I just think this video is hysterical.

  65. Re: Yes, but other property is increasing in value by OverlyGenericUsernam · · Score: 1

    Actually, flood insurance is its own problem in America. John Oliver on last week tonight explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  66. Just sayin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lived in San Diego 50 years.

    The ocean level at the foot of Broadway is exactly in the same location it was when I was a child.

    Nothing to see here. You are all being hoaxed.

  67. You be the one to cause values to decrease? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    A documentary about homes in floodzones and engineers that define these areas based on geological features that may change or have changed. When certain features change which then large areas become a flood hazard, so in one fell swoop the engineer that signs off on marking the area on a map as a flood zone just caused property values to plummet. How would you like to be that engineer?

    Can't blame the engineer(s) to be honest as long as they are competent. I sure would like to know if my property is in a flood zone. You can imagine the political fallout particularly from real estate businesses and their lobby. Then there is federal insurance to cover them in event of flood (homes getting rebuilt at govt expense), but tell homeowners to move? For many they don't have any other place to go (retirees living in their same home for decades). Then places like Silicon Valley where the land is expensive (depreciation is simply as tax writeoff but property will always go up in price). But wait, areas were Google is be declared a flood zone? What about their basement at Shoreline where they have pallets of billions in cash?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  68. Re:Why? Data doesn't support by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Maybe later; not in the mood. But even if the acceleration were "flat", that still means our coastal land is in deep doo-doo because it's still a flat line going up (under the "flat" assumption). We can argue about the cause, but arguing won't stop the flooding.

  69. My sea level must be disconnected by geowash01 · · Score: 1

    I live near and have worked at sea for decades. Yet, I see no evidence that the beaches are being flooded, that people's houses are being flooded, or even that the piers that I've used are being flooded. (And no glacial rebound in this area.)

  70. Real Estate Pricing is bullshit anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is mostly based on what other paid in the area for a similar house which disregards several important facts:

    1. Most people are idiots. Why should I pay more because other people got suckered?

    2. Unless the house is totally trashed the price never takes into account for problems. The price often ignores dumb shit like an unfinished basement and shitty paint entirely.

    3. Most houses built in the past 30 years are built as quickly and cheaply as possible making them worth less then the sum of its materials, yet shitheads think these houses should appreciate.

    So saying home value is disappearing is a completely meaningless statement.

    numbnuts

  71. Here's a list of failed predictions by scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

    How many failed predictions will it take to weaken your faith in the alarmist scientists?

  72. Re:Here's a list of failed predictions by scientis by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    Several of those "failures" are for dates that are still in the future so it is impossible to say that they have failed yet. Others of them offer a range of possible outcomes with words like "up to", etc yet the observations are still within the range predicted. Some others like the snow predictions don't take the full picture into account. It's true that fall snow is up and winter snow is holding in there but spring and summer snow levels have dropped a lot. It makes some sense because warmer air holds more moisture which means more snow when it's cold enough to snow. Other things are based on cherry picking. For example the statement that there has been no decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent since 2007. 2007 was a record breaking low year. If you used almost any other year as your base you would see a decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent.

    And yet that basic predictions that the world will continue to warm, ice will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and the ocean will continue to acidify keep happening. They may not always get the numbers exactly right but the fundamental predictions have been right.

  73. Will be interesting to see by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Just how long the general attitude of climate-change denial will go on in slashdot. Fingers still in ears. They will be for a long time, that's the power of motivated reasoning and intellectual cowardice. nanananananana

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  74. New Jersey is a province of India right? by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

    Every dirtbag skeevy recruiter call I get that from the New Jersey Indians confirms it. New Jersey might as well be a province of India. So, here's me out in flyover country gleefully not giving a flying fuck about property values for Indian recruiters & a small number of rich investment bankers who live close to NYC. Guess it's going to be harder for you to sell your home in LA or Jersey and move out to flyover country like I know you want to and are going to try, eh? I'm starting to think this Climate Change thing is going to rock! Meanwhile flyover country house prices are rising. Winners and losers, baby. Go back to India and buy a house there, maybe?